Talk:Reorx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reorx article.
Article policies
WikiProject Dragonlance
This article is part of WikiProject Dragonlance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Dragonlance universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the quality assessment scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
DoomsDay349 (talk ยท contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Regarding Notability

Genesis MUD is a Fantasy-Based MUD which borrows heavily from several fictional fantasy settings, including Tolkien and Dragonlance. Reorx is among the fantasy characters which were borrowed and incorporated into the game, which I believe establishes notability by way of WP:FICT IF there are any objections to removing the {{notability}} tag on this article, please air them now so they can be addressed before the template is removed. Dalamori (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion. While I welcome sources of any type, the reference to Genesis does not meet the criteria for a reliable source in accordance with WP:RS, and cannot be used as evidence of notability. The reason is because Genesis is a fansite, and as such is classed as a self published source - see WP:SPS for detail. It is not clear where the content of the Genesis site is drawn from, and it is possible it may have been copied from this article (which would an example of self-referencing). I do not wish to appear discouraging, but for the time being, I would request that the notability template remain in place until more reliable sources can be found. If you wish to obtain a second or third opinion about the reliablity of this source, I recomend that you post a request for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Genesis LPMud is actually a software computer game. It appears to be an Open Source Software project, and probably Free (as in speech) too. I disagree that the Genesis Website is a fan site. The website has a purpose other than to collect information about various things it's author finds interesting, The website documents the contents of the LPMud it is hosting. Also, I disagree that the articles are "self-published". Quoting WP:RS (in relevant part): "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
The referenced post on the Genesis site is obviously not a book, newsletter, forum post, open wiki, or a blog. So, let's discuss the two remaining options: Personal website, and other similar, starting with personal website. The bottom of the page lists the publisher in a copyright statement: "(C)Genesis - The Original LPMud, Host: genesis.tekno.chalmers.se Port: 3011" which would tend to indicate that this is most definately published by the officer of an organization ( in this case, probably an admin of the Genesis LPMud) on that organization's behalf. This effectively disqualifies it from being a "personal" website(or from being self-published, IMHO, but let me finish eliminating the possibilities).
Lastly, I will discuss whether or not it is similar to the other examples of self-published work: The site is run by an organization which exists for the primary purpose of providing an entertainment service, in this case a MMOG. The article in question was produced by the organization to document the fantasy environment of the entertainment service they were providing; and most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, not to document the Dragonlance Diety, Reorx, as he applied to Dragonlance, but to document Reorx as he applied to the entertainment service they were providing. I feel that this distinction is important and widely differentiates Genesis LPMud from a "Fansite". Did I miss anything? Dalamori (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, I think I did miss something from my argument: the article on Genesis LPMud appears to have been drawn from a source other than Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect the Campaign Setting published by TSR (now owned by WotC) is the most likely candidate. I base this statement on the fact that the Reorx article on the Genesis Website includes information not present in the Wikipedia article. I also note that while both articles present some of the same facts, they address them using different words, and the order in which they present the facts is not consistent. Unfortunately, the Genesis Article does not provide any clues about when it was written, so I cannot use that to determine which article was written first. However, in support of my theory, I do point out that they have a scanned copy of the official 1992 TSR Map included in the Campaign Setting on their website (Link). Dalamori (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The 'ref' you've added speaks not a whit to the notability concern. The text is written entirely in an in-universe style and is nothing more than regurgitation of primary source material by a fan site. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please discuss the logic you used to arrive at the conclusion that the linked article is a "fan site", because your lack of specificity makes it hard to effectively respond to your assertion. Also, while the style might be "in-universe", the "universe" it is "in" is not TSR Dragonlance, but Genesis LPMud, which is a very important distinction, as I said above in my previous comment. If you are still unconvinced, I would also appreciate it if you could elaborate, using specifics as I have done, on your justification for how the link fails to establish notability. I think we can all agree that we don't want this to become another protracted debate. So, let's get down to brass tacks, so to speak. Dalamori (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the definition of MUD, and you will see it is basically a self-built computer game. My labeling of Genesis it as a fansite was a bit harsh, but you must admit that the page you have cited shows that the Genisis website contains fansite content as well as the MUD itself. However categorisation of Genesis is not the point: Jack has highlighted the fact the page you have sited has a heavy the in-universe perspective, becuase it is basically a regurgitation of Dragonlance fictional content. It cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source because it does not contain real-world content, analyis, critisism or details of the characters development. In fact it has no information at all about the source, authorship or even copywrite ownership of Dragonlance material. Anyone could create such a webpage which does not cite its sources, and so it cannot be used as evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, thank you for your response. Just so I'm sure we're both talking about the same thing, could you please tell me which part of WP:RS you're using to base your analysis on, since I've already analyzed the self-published sources sections of WP:RS and WP:V, are you referring to a different section of WP:RS or are you attempting to point out something that was outside of my argument. Of particular concern to me is the fact that I was unable to locate the stipulation within WP:RS which addressed your "real-world content, analyis, critisism or details of the characters development" assertion. I, of course, still believe that the article establishes the fact that Reorx is an important part of their fantasy world, and that that establishes notability, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, I will happily listen to your arguments. Also, I'm still waiting for Jack to clarify and expand on his "in-universe" argument. Right now, I can't evaluate it because the only interpretation I was able to come up with on my own is that maybe Jack feels that any website which lists factual details about Reorx's characteristics is a "fansite", and therefore unreliable. This definition would present a problem, obviously, because any website which failed to list factual information about Reorx's characteristics wouldn't be a source, and that creates a catch-22. So, I propose we give Jack a little more time to elucidate his argument. Dalamori (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, after analyzing the second part of your argument, I must agree that it contains a very good point, where you allude to the fact that factual statements about Reorx (as applied to Dragonlance) are being supported by references about Reorx (as applied to Genesis) without any evidence that the two are linked, or that the information is correct for both characters. I still think that the Genesis source provides evidence towards notability; but I wholeheartedly agree that its current usage in the article is inappropriate, and needs to be fixed. I'm going to try and rewrite the article so that this distinction is much more clear-cut. I hope that the Dragonlance Nexus' Lexicon will make a much better candidate for sourcing the factual characteristics of Reorx in Dragonlance, since the Nexus site provides detailed information which supports their articles, including citing authoritative sources, and I would be very surprised if they didn't cover Reorx. I will probably have to make a "Real-World Influence" section, similar to what was done under Paladine, in order to use the Genesis link as a factual source, and properly establish notability in the body text of this article. Please let me know if making these changes to the article alters or obsoletes your notability argument. Dalamori (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am proably mixing my arguments up too much. Let me restate what I said. Genesis cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source because it is self-published. It does not provide evidence of notability because the citation contains only fictional content. What is needed is a citation of non-fictional content that provides content, analyis, critisism or details of the characters development. Just because one website mentions Reorx, this is not imply notability any more than my name in a telephone directory makes me notable. Basically you will have to come up with a more substantial reference.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, thank you for your clarification. I especially appreciate the link to WP:NOT#PLOT, as that is not a section of Wikipedia Policy I had found yet. Please understand that it will take me some time to respond to this argument, since I still have to read the policy, and I'm still working on rewriting the article as well (although I've been kinda lazy about that, real-life and whatnot. It's a lot easier to write in talk pages where you don't have to keep switching tabs to make sure you're doing sources correctly, etc...)
As for the Self-published sources argument, however, I'm afraid I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. I've already shown that Genesis LPMud and it's website, while certainly an effort of volunteers, cannot be categorized under any of the examples for self-published sources given in WP:V. I've already explained how and why it is different from the examples given, and that argument has not changed. But, I do think I've figured out a way to phrase it better:
Forums postings, newsletters, and blog posts, etc. are made by people for a purpose, which is that of expressing a Point of View, much in the same way that I am writing this reply in this talk page to express my own opinions about Reorx's notability. If I were to go and make a website on geocities or some similar service, and if I were to include information about Reorx, there would be nothing and no-one to stop me. I could even write it to include "analyis, critisism or details of the characters development", as you put it. But then that would be me making that page to express a point of view, mine. Wikipedia articles have nothing to gain by including information provided by me while I'm stating my own opinions; and indeed in the case of my example would be harmed by my duplicitous attempt to poison the POV of the Reorx article. However, the page on Genesis' website is not made for the purpose of expressing a viewpoint; it was made by the Genesis LPMud organization to provide a factual description of a major element of their fantasy universe. And whereas WotC reserves the right to retcon the fictional elements of Krynn, including Reorx or any other deity, if the Reorx inside their mud is not changed to conform to WotC, neither will their page on Reorx.
All of which still boils down to the fact that the page was made by an organization, not a person, and that that organization's interest in Reorx is to document a significant part of the service it provides. Dalamori (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to disagree with me wither Genesis is an example of WP:SPS - take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for confirmation. Whether it was written by one person or an "organisation" is irrelevant; the point is that Genesis has lower standards for publication than Wikipedia: no sources are quoted, nor are there any citations. Basically it is the same as a forum or a blog: we just don't know who wrote its content, and it could be even you. In this day and age, mentioning Reorx on your website is just a matter of copying and pasting, which is why Genesis is classified as a self-published source and is not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that the only section of Reorx I intend to support with this reference is that Reorx has been co-opted as a major element of the fantasy universe in one of the most popular MUDs on the face of the earth (currently #13 according to mostpopularsites.net, although it apparently held the #1 slot for at least two weeks running), I'm pretty sure there's no need to doubt it's veracity for the purpose used. (I'm pursuing the article on DL Nexus, and attempting to get page number confirmations on the Holy Order of the Stars and other sources to source the rest of the article. ) We can ask the noticeboard if you like, but we will have to take the context of what the link is being used for into account. Dalamori (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mostly finished with my rewrite of the Reorx article. Still to come is my confirmation for page numbers so I can write proper citations for HOotS, and the Novels for the novel references. Also, I'd like to find something better than the current Nexus article. But, one thing at a time, and right now, I need sleep. Dalamori (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I have removed some tags which were no longer relevant, after my rewrite of the article. I do hope you agree with my removals. As for WP:NOT#PLOT, I'm very skeptical that this guideline has any application to our debate about notability. On a literal basis, this rule is intended to prevent articles whose sole content is a plot summary; and certainly this article passes that test, as this article only briefly mentions plot details in the books where Reorx appears. However, if interpreted broadly, as I suspect you may be interpreting it, WP:NOT#PLOT could be seen as demanding that articles include substantive real-world analysis of all content within all types of fictional subjects, not just plot lines. However, even with this much broader interpretation, WP:NOT#PLOT says nothing about notability. From this, I can only conclude that WP:NOT#PLOT was never intended to disqualify otherwise notable articles on grounds that they contained a high ratio of fictional to real-world content, but rather to encourage editors to add non-fictional content to the notable articles which contain a dearth of real-world analysis. I cannot see any interpretation of WP:NOT#PLOT which would stipulate that this article is not notable, nor even any interpretation which says anything about notability whatsoever. While I understand that WP:NOT#PLOT is trying to steer this article toward better coverage of it's real-world impact, and you certainly are correct that this article could still be improved this way, I respectfully reject your argument that this article is not notable due to WP:NOT#PLOT. Dalamori (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I waited five days since my last argument on the topic of notability, but didn't get any further response. I removed the notability tag, but I will continue to watch this article should someone who feels this article may not yet meet the notability guidelines come along. Dalamori (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)