Talk:Open gaming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open gaming article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Ground rules

Anyone who adds anything should please cite a credible source, which should not consist of a blog, a post to a discussion forum or Usenet, and if it's a personal website, it should only be used as a source if the edit is about the website's owner. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anything that is deleted should be brought to talk for discussion. If everyone sticks to the policies, there should be no need to re-protect it, but I will if the reverting starts again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion Rules

Imho, Dominion Rules 2.0 use an open game license not just an open supplement license. I also added it to the Open game list. 81.209.224.202 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing: Organization

I would like to suggest that we re-organize this article slightly. The article currently has this organizations, which is a bit meandering:

   1 Overview
   2 Open Gaming Licenses
       2.1 Open Supplement Licenses
   3 Open Games
   4 History
       4.1 Open Gaming License
           4.1.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       4.2 Other licenses
           4.2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
           4.2.2 October Open Gaming License
   5 References

I think the subject (and the article's current content) lends itself to being organized like so:

   1 Overview
   2 History
       2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
       2.2 Open Gaming License
           2.2.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       2.3 Reactions to the OGL
           2.3.1 October Open Gaming License
   5 References
       5.1 Open gaming licenses
       5.2 Open games
       5.3 External links

What do folks think of that? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take silence as approval, I guess. I'll work on the reorganization tomorrow. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 06:41:30 Z

I've reorganized the article along the lines of my suggestion above. While I was at it, I added a few more examples and external links, and rewrote a few sections for clarity. You know, I think this is a damned good article now. I'm not sure what else I would want to change. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though. Thoughts, anyone? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:03:08 Z

[edit] Introductory section

EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. If there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. But since Wikipedia policy apparently contradicts proper technical writing practice, and since "Bluemoose" seems intent on enforing this misguided policy, I have revised the introduction. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z

Wow, take a look at every other article in Wikipedia, take a look at the guidlines. As I always say to people like you; do you honestly think everybody else is wrong and you right? or do you think it is possible that maybe you are wrong? Martin 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I did take a look at the guidelines. Up to a year ago, they specifically stated that the first section should have a header named "Overview". And yes, most people are wrong. Not everyone, but most people. That's one of the reasons why editng a factual document (like an encyclopedia) by "consensus" is doomed to failure. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-3 T 21:15 Z
If most people are wrong, how do you explain yourself? In general, I mean. As in, what if you agree with "most people" on something? Are you suddenly automatically wrong because you agree with the majority? Do you suddenly become "right" if you disagree with the majority - on ANYTHING? Such as, for instance, murder being wrong? The majority may not always be right about absolutely everything, but they are inherently not going to be wrong about absolutely everything either, simple statistics should tell you that much. Don't make generalizations. Especially not generalizations that basically say "I'm always right, everyone else is wrong, wrong, WRONG because they don't do things like I say they should, even though what I'm saying they should do is something trivial and based completely off of a subjective standard" (whether or not to include a first section called "Overview" is indeed subjective, as many articles may well suffice just fine with having the "overview" in the introduction, if the concept is simple enough) See 'cause those? Make you sound kind of like an asshole. I say this even as someone who in the case of this specific article (you're not even arguing specifics though, you're arguing generalizations, and articles on Wikipedia can by no means all fit the same exact, identical format nor should they), would agree that there should be an Overview section given that the concept needs more of an in-depth overview to give the reader a good grasp of it, since there's really somewhat too much general information to really fit into the intro. That said, WTF man? You say "That's technical writing 101". This isn't a technical manual! This is a general reference encyclopedia! Why on Earth are you applying the specific standards of one style/format of writing to another? That very little sense. In any case, if you really feel the whole project is "doomed to failure", well, leave. Criticism is one thing, but anal-retentive idiocy is another entirely. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Glad to see you haven't posted in months, if that's the way you feel about the project. Still boggles my mind how many people bother to post when all they want to say is "Wah! Wikipedia sucks! The whole idea of Wikipedia sucks! Everything about this site sucks! Why are you all wasting your bloody time here?" . I mean, isn't it a far bigger waste of time to bother to post on a site JUST to complain about how others are wasting their time by using the site? Given that it's not even a commercial site? 4.235.51.190
Nice rant, anonymous user. As for most people being wrong, you say, "Glad to see you haven't posted in months..." Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-04 19:36Z