Talk:List of GURPS books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of GURPS books article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Role-playing games Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games 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.

List

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-08-24. The result of the discussion was keep.

1 Obsolescence
2 Discussion of articles/redirects
3 GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!
4 Format?
5 Fair use rationale for Image:SteveJacksonManToMan.jpg
6 Fair use rationale for Image:Gurps Runar.JPG
7 Fair use rationale for Image:Gurps4e.jpg
8 Fair use rationale for Image:GURPSFantasyBestiary.jpg
9 Fair use rationale for Image:GURPSIlluminati.jpg
10 Alternate vs Alternative
11 Fair use rationale for Image:GURPS Fantasy 4.jpg
12 Fair use rationale for Image:Cover-sm.jpg

[edit] Obsolescence

This list is both out of date and poorly organised - wouldn't it be a better idea to use the same categories that Steve Jackson Games uses on their site? Lokicarbis 04:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

More incomplete than out of date. Many new books are included but older ones are left out. Also, many of the choices under fictional setting are rather odd. Shouldn't that category be reserved for liscensed works based on fiction? If not, than it should properly include all non-historical settings, rendering it rather useless as a category.

This should now be much more up to date. I have added in most of the missing titles from the sjgames gurps book list, as well as split out the 3rd and 4th edition titles into two separate sublists. I agree that the fictional settings choices seems messy. Perhaps we need:

Liscensed Settings
Genre Toolkits
Settings
- Fantasy
- Sci-fi
- …

Brehaut 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to have a entry for the GURPS Basic Set Deluxe Edition? seeing as its just chars and campaigns in a box. Brehaut 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Basic Set Deluxe edition has a separate product number from the unlimited edition books, hence a separate entry.

I added in the newest e23 release, Lands Out of Time, under 4E Fictional Settings. I was tempted to put it under Genre Toolkit, as it's effectively a subgenre book, but decided against it because 1) Infinite Worlds is also a Time Travel genre book, but leans heavier on setting material, and 2) it's much shorter than other such toolkit books, even Mysteries. Dahak 07:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of articles/redirects

So, anybody want to discuss what books should have articles, and which redirects? I'm going to say the ones that have won an award are the most likely to merit an individual article, but even then, I'm not set on that option. FrozenPurpleCube 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Award-winners, or books with critical acclaim by noted individuals, makes sense for a minimum criteria. Likewise, the notability GURPS Cyberpunk achieved should be sufficient, even if it hadn't been award-winning. My feeling is that short articles like GURPS Bestiary and GURPS Ice Age can probably be merged back into here with brief summaries. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why notabiltiy criteria for these articles should be different from any other. Multiple coverage from reliable sources should be sufficient, as should winning a notable award. -Chunky Rice 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, because it might help to have a plan anyway, even deciding what awards are sufficiently notable could help. Or whose reviews are acceptable. We might not even want an article on a given book with reviews and awards available. FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: yes, we do not need special notability criteria, but it is useful to have some consensus about what notability means for specific categories of subjects, as has been done for books (which does not cover reference books and instruction manuals, as GURPS books partly are), numbers and even pornographic actors. For instance, do we consider RPGnet a reliable source, even if the reviews are submitted by users? I'd be inclined to say that they tend to be reliable indeed: while it is not a true magazine, there is some kind of control on the reviews: "Reviews should: Be more than just a few paragraphs in length. Include both description & analysis. Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece. If reviews don't meet this criteria, they may be rejected." ([1]). Moreover, the coverage and the critical reception for role-playing games, board games and the like follows different patterns than for (usual) books and films. In the same vein, do we count as reliable EN World or OgreCave? --Goochelaar 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for reliable sources are pretty clearly spelled out at WP:RS. RPG.net's user based content I think clearly does not qualify, since there's a minimum, if any, of both of those things. It's just a cursory review for basic quality and lack of libel. For those other two, my first impulse is to say that they too, do not qualify, though I would need to look closer to make a final determination. A review from Dragon Magazine, Games, Games Quarterly, Knucklebones or any number of gaming publications should be satisfactory, though. -Chunky Rice 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd generally agree with what's been said above... namely books/supplements that have won some sort of award are notable (and that award should obviously be noted in the corresponding article). The Cyberpunk book is obviously notable as well. I do believe that there are some "staff writers" at RPG.net. I don't know of any way of identifying them except from the "Staff Writer" tag that may (or may not?) appear by their name. I do recall seeing such "Staff Writer" tags (or something to that effect) on some reviews (but can't remember which off the top of my head). As far as I'm concerned, these are just as valid as any review in Games, Dragon, etc. Clearly any review (meeting the appropriate criteria, i.e. not just "user-submitted") should be added to the article, perhaps as well as some suitable quote from the review (either good or bad, but something that denotes the book/supplement was reviewed). Barring such reviews/awards, the article should be redirected to this list here.

Also, ideally we (in the collective sense) will also do this as soon as possible so that all this time spent on the AfDs and the future AfDs will be avoided. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So what do folks feel about those books that are part of a franchise, such as Transhuman Space, Discworld, Trek and the Vorkosigan book? Separate sections, or links to coverage elsewhere? I'm sure there's an existing page for Trek, but I'm not sure about the other franchises. FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know that there was a Vorkosigan Saga GURPS book. I might look that up. I think that leaving them where they are is fine, though a separate section for "Licenced Properties." with a link to the relevant page for the source material would also be appropriate. Also in this category would be the Humanx Commonwealth and Wild Cards. Chunky Rice 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the book has been announced, but I haven't seen it published yet. (And there's also Horseclans, SMAC, Blue Mars and Uplift...) FrozenPurpleCube 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My only other suggestion is when a page gets redirected to the list here, we should add in a (very) brief description of the boo/supplement to the list here. The key thing is that we want to avoid "transferring" any concern about notability from the other article to this list. So any somewhat dubious claim might want to be avoided here. For example, if the book's article says it was the "setting/source of/inspiration for" a number of books, well if that can't be verified we don't want to make the same claim here (after all, if that could have been verified, it's likely that the original article could be kept as that's evidence of notability of that supplement). --Craw-daddy | T | 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, a paragraph summary would be beneficial. Also SJG's list of awards could be documented on the various article pages to provide evidence of notability (in those cases).

E.g.:

Staff (2007). Awards for Steve Jackson Games. Steve Jackson Games. Retrieved on 2007-09-05.
Staff (2007). Archive. Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts & Design. Retrieved on 2007-09-05.

Also should we be using {{cite book}} for these entries? I.e. include the authors, ISBN, &c.— RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is decided this page has to be more than a list. This page is now a ghetto, sooner or later when the majority of GURPS book articles have been transfered to this page the AfD nomination is going to come. Normally lists serve a purpose, e.g. to allow easy navigation to articles in that list, with the articles themselves deleted the accusation will be that this list is redundant, a list purely for the purpose of having a list, and that the remaining GURPS books can be served by a category GURPS books, that what few paragraphs of information that there are in this article can be merged back to the main GURPS article.

To survive as much of the detail from the transfered articles as possible must be integrated into this list. This list must serve a greater purpose than just be a list of GURPS books.

I think just about every GURPS article is being nominated in turn.KTo288 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am doing my best to make this article a better one, as you may see. I welcome every contribution, of course! I do not share your pessimism. This list is an integration to the GURPS article: of course the list in itself cannot be notable--no one will ever write a book, or a newspaper story on "List of GURPS books"! Please add authors, years, bibliographical details and other material, within those limits that will not allow this page to be accused of "fancruft". Happy editing, Goochelaar 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your faith in the good faith of other editors is not misplaced and I am being needlessly paranoid, and happy editing to you too.KTo288 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!

I have merged here some of the material from GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!, as decided in the AfD debate. --Goochelaar 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format?

The biggest drawback to using the {{cite book}} template is that the book name is no longer left-most on the line. That would make it a little more difficult to peruse the list. But I do think it would be good to list the authors, year of publication and possibly the ISBN for each of the books; even if the cite book template isn't the best choice. Perhaps something like this:

GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.

What do you think? This could be implemented as a separate template. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a somewhat mixed feeling: on the one hand, this style looks pleasant, and it is true that several of these books are most known (and searched for) for their title or theme than for their author. On the other hand, this format seems to somewhat belittle the importance of the authors, which is perhaps not desirable. What about something more on the lines of the following?

GURPS Witch World by Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1 - A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.

--Goochelaar 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would probably suggest something like this:

GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, ...

I think this strikes a balance between not belittling the authors, but makes for improved readability. The parentheses give the eyes something to distinguish between the title, author (and other info), and the book's description. Otherwise (to me at least), the text seems to all run together and I can't sort it out easily, and that's part of what I want to do, i.e. read it easily as this is an encyclopedia after all. :) --Craw-daddy | T | 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Before starting, I have one last doubt. Do you know whether doing it "by hand" rather than using a template makes a difference (apart from it being more or less practical or time-saving)? I mean, are templates machine-readable? Do they allow, say, to automatically compile bibliographies or something? --Goochelaar 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would think they could be used in the machine-readable sense, if you're scanning the page source. But I have no idea if they have been used in that manner. — RJH (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That works for me as well. So perhaps something like this?

 {{gurps book
   | title  =Name of the book
   | author =List of authors
   | year   =Year of publication
   | isbn   =10 or 13-digit ISBN number
   | language    =non-English language, if any
   | publisher   =non-SJG publisher, if any
   | description =Brief commentary on the work
 }}

— RJH (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great for me. Can you create a template? As for the "brief commentary": will this impose any limit on its length? (Unrelated: I had already merged some about GURPS RebornRebirth, under the Japanese books; we should unify the two summaries...) --Goochelaar 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a draft template at {{Gurps book}}. The description field wasn't added. I'm not aware of any length issues, but sometimes I've seen formatting problems for text inside templates.

Test: GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.

— RJH (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine work! I have begun formatting (and adding data for) a few books with the new template. --Goochelaar 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SteveJacksonManToMan.jpg

Image:SteveJacksonManToMan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Goochelaar 08:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gurps Runar.JPG

Image:Gurps Runar.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gurps4e.jpg

Image:Gurps4e.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GURPSFantasyBestiary.jpg

Image:GURPSFantasyBestiary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GURPSIlluminati.jpg

Image:GURPSIlluminati.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate vs Alternative

I am a native speaker of English, but I am unable to read this article because it makes such frequent use of "alternate" as an adjective. In UK English the correct adjective is "alternative" (except when used to mean "every other"). I tried to make it more readable, following the wp:mos guidelines, but was reverted. Does anyone else agree with me or am I on my own? Thunderbird2 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It currently appears that "alternative" is not preferred in the phrase "alternate history", by WP:COMMONNAME. See also Talk:Alternate history#Propose move to Alternative history and its archives. I made some changes in other phrases to avoid the issue. -- JHunterJ 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GURPS Fantasy 4.jpg

Image:GURPS Fantasy 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Added fair use rationale, Goochelaar (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cover-sm.jpg

Image:Cover-sm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)