Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons: edit · history · watch · refresh

Archive
Archives
  1. October 2006 - June 2007
  2. July 2007 - October 2007
  3. October 2007 - March 2008
Shortcut:
WT:D&D

Contents

[edit] List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

OK, it took almost a month, but I'm finally done with everything I wanted to do (as far as I can figure) with these lists, and I'm taking a break for now. Unless something goes wrong, I plan to move these lists into mainspace some time tonight (otherwise I can do it tomorrow morning) so that whoever would like to can add to them and edit them.  :)

As far as redirecting goes, rather than mass-redirect a bunch of articles, I will place merge tags on everything that I feel is a good merge candidate for these lists soon after I make the list articles live. I will be primarily targetting smaller stubby articles, though I may select some larger ones on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, I will be skipping iconic D&D stuff (beholder, illithid, dragons, etc), as well as anything which already got a solid Keep at AFD (slaad, death knight), and anything else that is particularly well-developed. I'll give people 5 days to dispute it, and anything uncontrovertial will be unceremoniously merged and redirected. ;) Anything that gets discussion on the talk page will be allowed to take whatever course it may, since people will have different feelings about different subjects.

If you want to nominate anything monster-related for a merge, please let me get first crack - I think I've earned it with all the work I put into these tables so far.  :) I should be done with that by the end of April at the latest, and then go for it. Obviously, anything that has already been redirected because of a previous AFD should be re-redirected to the lists once they are up. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fantastic. Drop a line here when you've moved them into the article space- I want to add them all to my watchlist, and will have a mess around with them. As soon as they go live, I think the main priority will be to get links to the articles all over the place- the merge tags will help attract editors, but we need to get readers here too- templates will be good to utilise, but some inline links (on key articles) will also be nice. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The fortitude of you and the others who have worked on the new lists is commendable.  :) I wouldn't have the patience for such an undertaking. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite draining and time-consuming. I'm letting others take over for now.  :) J Milburn, if you put my sandbox pages on your watchlist, they should carry over when I move the pages (at least, this has been my experience). Regardless, I will say something here when the process is done. Got to do a little cleanup on those pages before they are ready, but from start to finish I can't see it taking more than an hour. Look for this to happen roughly 4-5 hours from now. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is done - I am tired now.  :) I've redirected some of the AFD'ed articles into the lists, in case anything useful therein can be gleaned. I've started merge discussions on a dozen or so monster articles. Even that is time consuming, so we'll work on the 1974-1977 stuff first, and then move on from there. Oy, thanks for your patience everyone.  :) BOZ (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

should the __TOC__ be included to easier navigate to the books on each page? shadzar-talk 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Any method of making the pages easier to navigate without removing any information would be ideal.  :) BOZ (talk)
ok since you probably are able to find all these quickly i will leave out the links to most of them... Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989-1999) on the list has 3 links to the specific books. MC1, MC1, and MM. The page itself has no quick way to mavigate to the specific book. what i was suggesting was add the above code to the top of those pages that have the list tables to include a Table of Contents, so going from the page directly with the lists you can see what books are there, and quickly get to one of them. I added to the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters as an example. shadzar-talk 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely better, yeah.  :) It seems that any page with more than three sections will automatically get a TOC, but forcing it works even better. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, just completed the first round of redirects. None were contested, so all went over: Wraith (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Spectre (Dungeons & Dragons), Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Manticore (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Wyvern (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Purple worm‎, Nixie (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, ‎Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, ‎Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons), Roc (Dungeons & Dragons), ‎Will-o'-Wisp (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons), Shadow (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Hell hound (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Phase spider‎, Morkoth‎, and Su-monster‎. Naturally, since they all went undiscussed and therefore no real consensus was formed on any of them, I'd welcome further discussion from interested editors; until that happens it would probably be better if they remain the way they are. It breaks my heart a little to do it, since I wrote a number of them, but it seems redirecting is the best thing to do at the moment. Time to begin a new round of merge discussions - I think I'll make it much smaller this time, because I'm tired.  :) BOZ (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should just merge everything that doesn't have some third party refs. Rip the band aid off, so to speak. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, all in due time - though I'd rather not be that drastic. I bet some things do have some independent refs; we've found them before and I doubt we've found them all! BOZ (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember the cute picture of the Aztec goddess Tlazolteotl from 1981's D&DG getting a mention in Freaks and Geeks...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC): Would it not be productive to include in any "common" monsters to the Dungeons and Dragons environment references to mythological and/or fictional sources? "Goblins", for example, aren't inherent to the Dungeons and Dragons environment and while Dungeons and Dragons might have their particular "flavor" to the goblin etymology, this might help establish either notability or importance given that this is a content-specific development of an already established mythological creature. Does this concept have merit to content contributors of Role-Playing Game articles?
Yeah, go for it - it may not settle any notability issues, but it couldn't hurt. :) Just try to avoid speculating; if something has the same name as a creature from myth/legend then it's fine to mention, but otherwise try to avoid unsourced logical conclusions. BOZ (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Next round is done - redirected Aranea (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Draeden‎, Lupin (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Nightshade (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, and Rakasta‎ to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999), from whence they originally came. I'll be starting on the next round later this evening. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yawn - just slapped tags on a ton of articles... that took for-damn-ever.  :) I'll be taking a break for now... BOZ (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, just completed the third, and what will probably be the biggest round of redirects, monsters that debuted in first edition: Dragon turtle (Dungeons & Dragons), Dragonne, Ear seeker, Imp (Dungeons & Dragons), Nightmare (Dungeons & Dragons), Piercer, Quasit, Remorhaz, Roper (Dungeons & Dragons), Sea Cat (Dungeons & Dragons), Achaierai, Crabman, Dakon (Dungeons & Dragons), Iron cobra, Ogrillon, Quaggoth, Retriever (Dungeons & Dragons), Thoqqua, Aspis (Dungeons & Dragons), Aurumvorax, Bodak, Cooshee, Eblis (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Fomorian (Dungeons & Dragons), Grippli, Grig (Dungeons & Dragons), Hangman tree, Hollyphant, Magmin, Shadow mastiff, Taer, Vargouille, Bhaergala, Crawling claw, Voadkyn, Hsing-sing, Tyrg. I'd get to starting the merge discussions for the second edition monsters now, but this was very draining and time-consuming and I just don't have time at the moment! Maybe tomorrow, over the weekend, or even early next week... BOZ (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Magazine - Kenders

Hi.:) I seem to recall that some members have back issues of Dragon, and was wondering if anyone can check issue 224 for me. Apprantly Harold Johnson wrote something called "First Quest" where he describes how he came up with the idea of the Kender. My source is The Kencyclopedia, but I'd rather confirm it with the original source, and, if possible, confirm the usual referencing details (page, author, title, etc). - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the First Quest article details the CD introductory adventure game. I think it was Roger Moore who created to concept of Kender, but i will look through the DMA and check with the Kencyclopeida to see what is being talked about here. Will take a bit of time to search the PDFs as I do not have the program installed currently that has them indexed and searchable. shadzar-talk 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
ok so i remembered wrong. Dragon Magazine, Issue 214, Vol. XIX, No. 9, February 1995, page 70, First Quest Column starting on page 8 and continued on page 70. "by Harold “Wisconsin” Johnson" Kencyclopedia contains the last 5 paragraphs of that article. that enough info for you? shadzar-talk 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That's absolutely perfect - thankyou! I wanted to add an origins section, but that was the only hint I could find as to where they came from, and the secondary source wasn't sufficiently reliable. Thanks again. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I installed the search program for DMA again to check any other references needed for issues 1-250 shadzar-talk 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, further research shows that you were right, too. :) Johnson created the first Kender, so I guess the concept belongs to him (as is probably the name, but that is unclear), but Moore did most of the development, and Hickman added their kleptomania. If you get a chance, and I'm sorry to impose on you again, could you confirm the details for Dragon 101, in regards to the All About Kender article by Moore - again, The Kencyclopedia seems to have reprinted it, and I'm sure that it is accurate, but as a policy I can't trust the source. At this rate we should be able to throw together a nice "Conception" section along with some referencing for the rest. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
not imposing at all. in all this 3rd/4th edition stuff im glad i can dust off this thing i paid $60 for and get some use out of it. it will take me a bit of time to read over since this is a larger article, so may be later today that i can get to it. but i will start a new section for it on the Kender talk page when i get to it. shadzar-talk 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation with Gavin.collins?

I brought this up at Jéské Couriano's talk page and I might as well extend it here as well. Conflicts with Gavin continue basically unabated, as they have for over six months now, and I'd like to see what can be done about that other than letting him have free reign or waiting until he gives up and goes away.  :) Jeske said he would willingly do mediation with Gavin. What about the rest of you? You can be involved directly with the mediation, or just support the mediation effort, or oppose the motion (and state why) or just be neutral and watch how it goes.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved in the Mediation case

  1. As BOZ has brought up, I'm willing to do mediation with Gavin. I take issue laregely due to his aggressive cluelessness with regards not just to D&D, but to RPG's in general. While some of what he has tagged is good, a lot of it just makes little sense. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yo. SamBC(talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support Mediation

  1. I support mediation for the reasons cited above. Rray (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I support mediation for the reasons given. I'd rather edit than have to fight every edit any day. Web Warlock (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I will also show support for mediation... far better to act civilized. Baron (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. i support this. don't know what good i could add, but at some point if there is anything i could add, i would be willing to become invloved shadzar-talk 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I also support this. --Robbstrd (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I support this per basically what every other user has said. McJeff (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Something needs to give, so sure dialogue is much preferable to revert wars. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. I'm happy to support this - it's a good idea. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. I strongly support mediation for the above reasons, especially so given recent conflicts and associated discussion on various article talk pages.Shemeska (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. I concur due to experience in AfDs and the request for comment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. I also support this. Edward321 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. I support mediation for the reasons cited above.Kairos (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. I support this wholeheartedly, if not optimistically. I'd be willing to get involved if that would help, though I'm not sure what I could do that hasn't already been tried. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. He has been spamming tags blindly and without regard for whether he's already had a crack at the article. Snuppy 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. My impression is that Gavin Collins is on a power trip: he pastes tags en masse and gets a kick out of watching honest editors scramble. This is not unlike ruining an anthill for the pleasure of watching the ants run about in panic. This disruptive pattern needs to be stopped. Some of you say that there were occasional good results. The truth is the good results have never been brought about by Gavin--he does no constructive editing at all. Any benefits are solely due to the editors who responded to his attacks. Freederick (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. I'm always in favor of mediation over disputation. (Hey, I'm a Quaker and a veteran of union contract negotiations.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strike this through if I should not comment because I am not actually affiliated with the D&D wikiproject. My impression is that Gavin Collins is attempting to clean up of our coverage of a field that he explicitly knows nothing about by forcing editors who do to clean it, and he does so in a manner that has resulted in frequent complaints of incivility and hostility. It is true that he does no constructive editing in D&D at all, and even without assuming a power trip, the effect on other editors looks like the above. The situation needs to change. An actual effective dialogue would be a nice if unrealistic outcome. --Kizor 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. I've had several dead-end conversations with Gavin and I think his approach needs to be addressed conclusively. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support. I wholeheartedly agree with the users Freederick and Kiz, as well as the stated reasons for the Mediation. Gavin.collins does not contribute any actual content to Wikipedia and primarily seems to "patrol" science-fiction/fantasy articles with the intent to apply various tags which may or may not be relevant, applicable or appropriate. I have read repeated requests for Gavin.collins to familiarize himself with related materials, which seems not to have occurred, and I have also read repeated requests for Gavin.collins to make any attempt to personally improve an article before tagging it, which I'll admit I may have missed, but to the best of my knowledge has also not occurred. The user responds to repeated attempts at civil discussion by quoting Wikipolicies that may or may not apply or be relevant in a manner consistent with users who attempt to use guidelines (not rules) to enforce their point of view. This user also recommends quite a number of articles for deletion without an apparent regard for good-faith editing or contribution, or in some cases (notably earlier ones) any attempts at improving the quality of articles. -   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. seems like both sides need mediation. harlock_jds (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - there seems to be an element of "my way or the highway" from this user.Asgardian (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support! His editting "style" is to be as rude as possible.Kairos (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support for the above cited reasons. Ukulele (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose Mediation

  1. Opposed i've only interacted with Gavin on one article (Car Wars) and honestly his actions lead to an improvement on the article. I have been following his editing since the problems on Car Wars and while i think he could be a bit more civil (and more realistic with the criteria he uses to judge articles) i think the most of the issues have been from others attacking him than with his edits. harlock_jds (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This may be moot now, however, as his pages are move-protected to keep his stalker away and semi'd to keep off 4chan mass spam. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
changing my vote harlock_jds (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral toward Mediation

  1. Neutral. I'm somewhat torn on this one. The only interaction (I can remember, anyway) has been at Dan Willis. He was (in my opinion) picking nits on whether Willis is notable, and refused to give an inch until another editor came along indicating they thought the article met the minimum notability requirements. I can understand wanting to make sure article meet the basic requirements, but I think he may get overzealous at times. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I have only really interacted with Gavin.collins once, and that was about the use of the term "vandal" (which I wrote in the RFC.) Mediation might work here, because I don't think Gavin is out here because he wants to cause grief, but I'm not sure if I can be called as part of any "party" since I don't consider myself a D&D editor, (I consider chess to be a superior game in every possible way :-P) even though I have read several novels in the D&D campaign setting Dragonlance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding Mediation

I'll be glad to take charge on this one, but if someone with a better head on their shoulders would like to step in, I'd be all too happy to let them do it.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A related concern is how well (or poorly) the Wikipedia standards for notability apply to RPG subject matter. It often proves excedingly difficult to find suitable sources for some of these pages, despite their apparent notibility inside the gaming communities. So I have to wonder whether some of this material is at all appropriate for wikipedia, or if we need different notability standards for certain entertainment topics? If we had different standards, this whole issue might just go away.—RJH (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you don't know, there are proposed notability guidelines for RPGs at WP:RPG/N. However, there's a more inclusive proposed guideline at WP:TOYS which seems to fit the bill and Percy Snoodle has tweaked those guidelines somewhat to include RPGs (and board games, card games, etc). I think the idea is to abandon the separate notability proposal at WP:RPG/N in favor of the larger, more inclusive one at WP:TOYS. Keep in mind that it's only a proposed guideline, and I have no idea how one goes about getting it to a "real" guideline nor how long that process takes. Unless there's substantial effort at changing the general WP notability guidelines, it will prove difficult to argue that everything that is "notable inside the gaming community" is notable according to WP standards.
On a somewhat related note, if anybody is interested in slogging through 60+ pages of talk, there's lots of discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) about the concept of notability for "spinoff" articles. This all has somewhat to do with other guidelines such as WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. (A few of you may have encountered these alphabet soups in the recent past.) I haven't followed all the details at the fiction notability talk pages (and don't have the fortitude to follow through the fine minutiae necessary to implement policy changes). In my opinion I think the simple fact of the matter, for better or worse (and your opinion may vary as to mine), is that people should focus on bringing the articles up to standards so that people outside of the RPG world can find them useful to read about, and need not have a detailed understanding of D&D (or whatever RPG the article is about) in order to appreciate an article. This may very well mean that some articles are unsalvageable, at least until appropriate sources can be located, but this is the way of things. I heartily applaud BOZ's (and others!) efforts on the new lists for D&D monsters and is a definite step in the right direction for dealing with a lot of the "problem" monster articles via redirects. Time could be well spent first on upgrading articles on the various books/modules/supplements/campaign guides/etc as there should be many reviews and such for making them better and adding in that desired real-world context and commentary into the articles. Of course, in this respect I'm generally speaking as an outsider as my interest is limited when it comes to dealing with the D&D articles, and I typically spend my time with other game/RPG articles.
In any event, I can try to help out with this discussion, throw around ideas, etc, etc. I generally spend my time editing the board game, card game, RPG articles, with an occasional pass at other things. Keep in mind that if the RfM is to proceed, at some point the "official" mechanism described at WP:RFM must be enacted, and all parties must agree to it.
Okay, I'll shut up now.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page that describes the dispute or whatever? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean an actual RfM page? Not yet. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article talk page that is typical for what this RfM is about? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance, Talk:Githyanki, Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance), Talk:Kender, Talk:Lolth, Talk:Dan Willis, Talk:Empire of Iuz, probably others, and some user talk pages. Maybe some other folks can point out some better examples. BOZ (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an extreme example: Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). As can be seen, Gavin added so many templates that it renders the article out of sight below the templates. While I haven't attempted to argue the article's notability, he simply added every single tag that he could get away with, including weasel words. He also stocked the text of the article full of various kinds of citation needed inserts, which would actually be quite helpful if it weren't done so indiscriminately. He did the same to Lady of Pain, although I removed several templates from that one. This in my view is clear abuse of templates. McJeff (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing the earlier Request for comment should also give a good idea of the dispute as it stood some months ago. --Rindis (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does mediation involve? What outcomes are possible? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Despite the initial discussions here, it might be fruitless as it appears Gavin may not be interested in mediation. See Jéské's talk page. Measure any response you make carefully. (Indeed, the same goes for any interactions you have with other editors.) Mediation only works if all parties involved agree to it. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If Gavin is not interested in mediation, perhaps we should pursue an RfC again. I will not deny that his style has led to cleanup on a number of articles; however, his attitude and his insistence on remaining completely ignorant about the game industry require serious adjustment if he is to work with rather than against the other editors here. I noted above that he has been spamming tags blindly; by way of evidence I submit:

  1. His first shot at Planescape
  2. A thanks for cleaning up the article
  3. Restoring Notability template a month later, though the cites haven't changed
  4. His standard "restore the template" boilerplate with my response

Snuppy 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir - I'll have to look at the RfM guideline to see how and what sort of evidence is to be presented, but yes you can help out by saving me some time looking through those thousands of edits.  :) And Craw-daddy is absolutely right, everyone please be civil to Gavin, as we would like him to change his mind and participate in this process. And is there any point in pursuing a second RfC - can it even be done? Believe me I considered that, but when someone explained to me how the dispute resolution process worked, I realized that RfM was the next logical step. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If Gavin refuses to participate in the RfM, the next step up would be Request for Arbitration. RfC has already taken place and while it caused Gavin to cut down on the number of AfD's and PRODs, it didn't solve the civility issues, and it hasn't kept him from abusing AfD, as seen in the article Atach, which he AfD'd when it got un-merged a few times (the un mergers citing a lack of consensus to merge). McJeff (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
However, I noticed that no one has yet told Gavin that there is an RfM in the process, so maybe someone ought to do that? McJeff (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
He is aware of it - see Jeske's talk page. Let's take this one thing at a time - I will not discuss an RfA until and unless the RfM is finished and has proven unsuccessful. I am in full agreement that the RfC did not address the civility issues, but then at the time perhaps those issues were not as prevalent. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
His response on Jeske's talk page was extremely discouraging. McJeff (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that as a reason not to continue. He may change his mind once the request is put up, and he did not say that he will not participate, only that he does not think he wants to. We'll carry on - you never know until you try. :) Besides, it shows a good faith effort on our part to at least start a mediation attempt. If I'm wrong, someone correct me before I waste my time. :) BOZ (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Fait accompli here: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change" That would seem to describe Gavin's behaviour perfectly. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He is only tagging articles, not making redirects (as was the case in E&C2), and as such the fait accompli isn't really helpful here, as ArbCom cases apply only to the controversy they were asked to resolve. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The principle is the same. He's making large numbers of similar edits; he's been apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed; he's using volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli and to exhaust their ability to contest the change. His behaviour is as bad as the behaviour that the ArbCom case had to rule on last time. I suspect, since RfMs are voluntary, that Gavin will turn down the request and it'll have to go to ArbCom again; and they'll see this the same way. If he wants to avoid ArbCom, then pointing their opinion out to him may compel him to accept the RfM. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proceeding onward

OK, first of all, anyone participating in any way should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. In reading that page, a request for mediation must be about content disputes, not conduct disputes. While I agree we have plenty of each, we must do our best to sort out the conduct disputes ("he called me a name!" "he said I was wrong!" "he kicked dirt in my eye!") from the content disputes ("the wrong template was added/removed", "this is a reliable source", etc). I don't think it's unfair to mention that conduct issues have arisen because of the content disputes, but for the RfM process we must focus on how the content is debated first.

We must provide evidence of prior dispute resolution attempts. I think in this case it would be fair to include the RfC on Gavin, as that explicitly discusses content disputes that editors have had with him. Other good things to include would be article talk pages and user talk pages where users have attempted in good faith to negotiate with Gavin (and vice versa) regarding the content of various articles. Of particular note should be any case where a RfC was filed on a particular article, or a third opinion request. Note that if you have not already done so on a current case, it should be OK for you to attempt that now, and the results of which can be added to the RfM case. The way I see it, the more attempts at dispute resolution we can display, so much the better.

On a going-forward basis, I'm going to have to ask that everyone who put their name in the "Support" column above would show the same courtesy, respect, and civility to Gavin that you would expect from him. If you truly do want this mediation to succeed, you will do so; if you do not do so, it is more likely that this will fail.

This is not an attempt to "get Gavin in trouble", because that is not what mediation is for. In fact, the mediation committee cannot get anyone into trouble unless they attempt to abuse the process somehow. It is a voluntary process that all parties will agree on in their approach to further editing. It is not binding, but it does reflect poorly on any parties who agrees to the resolution and then acts contrary to the agreement. It is intended to help provide a reasonable compromise on the issues at hand.

It is unnecessary for our initial request to outline the full history of the dispute until the mediation has been accepted and a mediator has taken the case. Thus, we have some time to think and review on how we are to handle this process. It is not a chance to pull up pages and pages of edits to look for to show diffs as evidence of wrongdoing at this time; I don't know if that is even part of the mediation process. The process is described as "slow", so taking our time is preferable here.

What we do need to find is any article which was disputed and where mediation of some sort would be or would have been helpful. This could be as many as it needs to be, and again I say the more the better. We must clearly identify in each case which issues needed to be mediated (Ex: not just "edit war over templates" but "edit war over templates which I believe were applied incorrectly and I explained why I felt this way on the talk page") by providing a summary.

I do not know if all disputes presented must involve myself and/or Jeske (or anyone else who may decide to become an "Involved" editor) with Gavin. This may be the case, and we may have to limit this to content disputes where one of the Involved editors took part. I don't know if we'll be able to extend this request for mediation towards Gavin's involvement with "other" editors. It seems that in the mediation request there is an "additional issues to be mediated" section for other editors to list any issues they wish to include in the mediation?

We will file the case as soon as the steps outlined above (identifying disputed articles and the issues to be mediated, and identifying all attempts at dispute resolution). In the meantime, continued discussion is encouraged. Anyone who has experience with this process is encouraged to share anything they know about it which we have apparently not yet considered. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the above Episodes thing involving Fait accompli...and think similar is one of the most important things of this "dispute". Mass tagging of articles without understanding of either the tags, or the articles. Also not wanting to work with other editors, or help to actually improve the articles themselves for lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I think for myslef at least, and maybe other, this is the big dispute in a nutshell. Whether some other reasons are behind it or whatnot, makes no difference so long as in the end we are all working together for the sake of making good articles, rather than appearing on a leash from one or more editors to fix articles within their prescribed or preferred timeframe. Don't know if this helps any, but those are in a nutshell my problems with the editing choices made by Gavin. Civility issues aside. Are these the correct things you mean that should be discussed in the RfM? I see lots of ways around there ever being problems, and possible solutions, but do not know if they are the correct approach to resolution, and would offer any of those ideas, if they are needed or any part of the process. shadzar-talk 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably mention a lot of that, but the description has to be pretty nutshell - they don't want a long description before someone takes the case. The intro will be something to the effect of "Longstanding content dispute between Gavin and various editors of RPG articles on notability and content-related tags, resulting in edit-warring, numerous WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations." Then I would need to discuss a few cases as examples of the problem, and I'm looking at Githyanki and Kender as being good recent examples of the conflict which will be near the top of the list. I'll try to spend some time tonight looking over various talk pages and article edit histories to find useful examples, and work in things that people have mentioned here since I started this discussion. Anything that anyone else can point my way would be a big help. I'll come up with a mock writeup and post here so that people can comment. BOZ (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing the request

I have begun working on the formal request for mediation. Please, post your comments here and I will take them into account. I've tried to take into account all the concerns posted above, as well as concerns from Gavin's RFC, as well as concerns posted by Gavin himself. I've tried to remain intentionally vague about any conduct issues, as the RfM guidelines go out of their way to state that RfM is not an outlet for dealing with conduct issues. However, it seemed to lessen the importance of the mediation to not mention the conduct issues at all, so I've got them in there.

Please read what I've got there. If I'm missing something or if I should remove something, let's talk about it now. If I should add any articles with a strong conflict or remove any with a weaker conflict, or if you can think of any other attempts to mediate conflicts between Gavin and RPG editors, now is the time to speak up. If you would like to take this opportunity to become an Involved editor in this RfM, let me know. Please be advised that the Mediation committee will be looking at all editors, and not just Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of cutting the section about "issues to be mediated" down a bit, to focus less on the behavioral issues and thus more on the content issues. There's a section for "comments from other editors" (other than the one filing the request, which I have presumed to be me), and maybe there Jeske could note some of the conduct issues which have arisen, or anything else I don't specifically mention? And if not, we could just get into those details once/if the case actually opens. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of removing the third paragraph entirely; this sort of statement would be best made during the mediation case rather than before it - especially if I'm toning down the conduct part. Save it for later: "What is needed, if possible, is a resolution that will encourage Gavin and the other editors to co-exist in a civil manner, where we can assume good faith with no personal attacks, to better work on the content issues that these articles often do have, in an atmosphere of discussion, collaboration, debate, and consensus, and that when there is a dispute we handle it with the proper dispute resolution process."
Removing the conduct issues from the second paragraph (which as I said can be stated subsequently at any point) will turn this:
"Conflicts over article content commonly occur in a manner as follows. Gavin or another editor will place one or more cleanup tags on one or more articles believed to contain content issues. Another editor will disagree with the template(s) on an article and then remove the template, or the editor will make an attempt to fix the issue and then remove the tag or ask for it to be removed, or will post on the article's talk page to contest the tag(s). Gavin will restore the tag, or insist on the article's talk page that the tag be restored or remain, arguing that the issues remain. One or more other editors will then claim that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or will claim that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template. Sometimes edit-warring over the tags will commence. Often on the talk pages of the articles, or on user talk pages, uncivil conflict between opposing editors will arise, causing disruption. Sometimes Gavin will propose that an RPG article be deleted after such conflict arises over the article's issues."
into this:
"Gavin will place one or more cleanup tags on one or more articles, and sometimes one or more editors will disagree with the template(s), often claiming that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template. Gavin will usually assert that the article issues remain, often even when an editor makes an attempt to fix the issue and removes the tag or asks for it to be removed."
Yay, or Nay? BOZ (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think I'll nix those two times on his talkpage where I approached him about his civility issues, because I don't think those will help in a content dispute. However, I'll leave up the two times that Percy approached him about his templates because they are very relevant. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, just so you aren't just talking to yourself.... Your proposed final seems pretty good to me. I have some problems with it because as you say RfM is for content only and it seems that the content and conduct elements here are inextricably linked. I'm worried that if you downplay the conduct too much, the the Mediators may be unhappy that they've gotten stuck with a tarbaby when the rest of it starts coming in. To me, Gavin's real problem is that he is an 'intellectual trollskin'. [Hmm. May not have as much usage as I thought. -From LARPing: A person who refuses to acknowledge any but the most serious blows.] He shows an unwillingness to work with people instead of over them, and shows a marked tendency towards 'any weakness in your argument means I can ignore all of it'. --Rindis (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah, nail on the head and all that; I'm sure most if not all of the complainants here have experienced all of that.  :) Of course, it's not my intent to "stick" anyone with an unfixable problem (to continue your euphamism); if it cannot be fixed, then it will simply fail as I understand it. It's better to try and fail than to have never tried at all. I didn't intend to garner all this positve support and then not do anything about it - the trick is to find the best way to do it right. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and I do think this should be the next step, as it sounds like he is still generating problematic tags and being unbending in his opinions (haven't directly encountered him in some months). I guess I'm just advising against downplaying the conduct side of the problem too much, so it isn't a 'surprise' when it comes up (as I imagine it will). --Rindis (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be right - I was concerned about that. It's about finding the right balance. Obviously, if there wasn't a conduct issue, I probably wouldn't even be bothering with all this.  :) When it comes to content issues, I usually let other people deal with it. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add canvassing to the report. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know - that seems to be strictly a conduct issue, and not really related to the other issues at hand. (Yes, his attempts to change the notability guidelines are indirectly related, but that's another issue entirely and beyond the scope of what we're trying to accomplish with this mediation.) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The largest problem I can see is that most of the issues people have with Gavin.collins are behavioral, not editorial (although editorial issues exist, albeit muted nowadays). -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think the major problem is content-related, it's behavioral. Being uncivil, being unwilling to compromise, asserting ownership of articles, and arguing endlessly with multiple editors who disagree with one tag out of 500 is a behavioral issue rather than a content issue. The insistence that the tags he adds cannot be removed, and the way in which he approaches editors who disagree with him, is nothing more than disruptive trolling. Using exceedingly formal and legal language like "cease and desist" on multiple user talk pages is contrary to a collaborative environment. It drives away good editors who would actually make the effort to improve articles, a behavior which Gavin does not display, in spite of repeated invitations from multiple editors to actually fix article problems instead of arguing about the tiny percentage of templates that he's added. The insistence that these irrelevant, inaccurate, and inappropriate tags be re-added is disruption and trolling. At this point, I think administrative action like warnings and blocks would be appropriate.
And I think Gavin's made it clear that he's not interested in mediation, compromise or collaboration. His attitude seems to be that he's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to cause no end of irritation to anyone who dares disagree with him. I don't mean to sound harsh, but assumption of good faith erodes in the face of multiple instances of disruptive edits and trolling. Rray (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin himself has a problem with feeding trolls; on one AfD he sent a F-U missile Grawp's way. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, Gavin.collins has been relentlessly harassed by Grawp on-wiki. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Jack Merridew was Grawp's favorite target for awhile (even going so far as to create an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on him, which someone showed me recently), so I guess with him gone Gavin's the lucky inheritor. I may not like a lot of what Gavin does, but damn... I mean, damn. :) BOZ (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got my first "cease & desist" from Gavin, and I'm now getting frankly fed up; apparently, any statement that Gavin disagrees with isn't "reasonable" and will be met with a seemingly random collection of policy abbreviations of dubious applicability. Pointing out the lack of applicability gets a long-winded but ultimately bland "I'm right, you're (all) wrong" statement . I've extended more courtesy and patience (and even support) to Gavin than probably most of those who've run into him on gaming-related articles, but his obstinacy in recent discussions at Talk:Kender and the suddenly revitalised brick-wall-esque disagreement over "generic role-playing games" have left me feeling that Gavin is either unwilling or incapable of actually understanding what people say and/or accepting that his first assessment of a situation is wrong. The slow grind of this disruption, combined with the fact that plenty of Gavin's activity is beneficial to wikipedia, makes it hard to deal with. SamBC(talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Might it be time for an RfArb? There's already an RfC on him; from what I've seen the issues raised there have not abated much, if at all. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that when taken in context, Gavin's cease and desist messages are uncivil. (The use of the phrase "cease and desist" is legal terminology, and the implied threat discourages a collaborative environment. Besides that, it's condescending and rude. I addressed this with him months ago, but he wouldn't hear of it.) I'm of the opinion that his behavior warrants warnings from admins and blocks from editing. I admire your courtesy and patience with Gavin, and I agree that some of what he does is useful. But his disruptive behavior needs to be stopped at this point. RFC didn't seem to work and reasonable discussion doesn't seem to work. Rray (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the next step is RfArb... I don't have time to gather and present evidence, but I can voice support and agreement. If you're pulling stuff together, make sure to include the two-phase debate on "generic", and I'd appreciate the recent disagreement at Kender being mentioned; I might tweak my blurb above as a statement for an RfArb. SamBC(talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll file if there's consensus to do so amongst those who have chimed in here. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've been wondering that myself. I kind of thought that we almost needed to go through the step of an RfM before moving on to an RfArb. The sentiment here seems to be that an RfM will be ultimately pointless. I've wondered it myself. If we actually can move to an RfArb and the group thinks it would be a better idea, then that's what we'll do instead. Give me a few minutes and I'll put it to the group and try to get a consensus. Kinda busy at the moment. :) BOZ (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Gavin has indicated that he isn't willing to participate in mediation, so that's that, I guess. Gavin hasn't listened to other people, many other people, telling him he is (in any individual case) mistaken, unreasonable, impolite, and so on; maybe he'll listen to ArbCom telling him that. SamBC(talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So It's Come To This: An ArbCom Quip Show

The general consensus here is that any requests for mediation on this topic will fail either because (α) Gavin will not agree to mediation, or (β) mediation will not solve the conduct problems. At this point, all we really can do is file an RfArb and provide evidence. As maligned as it is, it is the only thing we can do at this point in time, but we need to be prepared for this to drag out: ArbCom cases generally take about three weeks from start to finish. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, given the scale of the problem (in time), 3 weeks is nothing. I recommend taking time to gather evidence before making the request, though. SamBC(talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a mountain of evidence large enough to convict even OJ Simpson to sift through... Maybe we should work in shifts or something? :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
His talk page is a good place to start - I made certain not to delete "good" revisions when he got shitstormed. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing the request, take 2

OK, I was just about ready with the formal request for mediation. Discussing an arbitration case (see below if you haven't already) was worth considering as an alternative, but we won't be exploring that right now.

I have made the changes I outlines in the above section, and also removed User talk:Gavin.collins#NPOV dispute and User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 5#Please be civil to all users, as those pertain more to conduct issues than content. I also felt that Talk:Kender#Synthesis, while it does deal with the content issues, doesn't feel to me to be specifically an attempt at dispute resolution. Maybe I'm wrong though, and it can be put back.

If you can find any more attempts at dispute resolution, specifically RFCs related to article content, third party opinion requests on article content, and any informal mediation on user pages related specifically to content issues, let me know and I'll add them.

Also, if anyone else wishes to be added as an involved editor for the RfM, now would be the time to do so. As SamBC asserts, "Anyone who's had an involved run-in with Gavin and wants to participate in mediation to resolve it" is welcome to sign up, but that's purely voluntary.

Any other articles that have been highly disputed over their content that you want me to add, let me know; otherwise I think we have a fine enough sampling here.

If this request seems to be basically fine, we'll go with it and see what happens; we've spent enough time on this and I think it's pretty much ready.

RfM's usually seem to be named after a single article, but in this case that seems inappropriate; anyone have a title to suggest?  :) BOZ (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At Gavin's request, I have made a few minor edits and removed the line "often claiming that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template" to make the initial request more neutral, which I think is perfectly fair. That part remains the crux of the matter for the RPG editors, and can be brought up at any point, either by Jeske or SamBC in their remarks, or by me when/if the case is taken. The "issues" statement as currently written seems factually correct, now deals solely with the content issues, and is more to the point. If no one has any further issues with this, or anything else to add to it, I can file it today. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have filed the request. It seems that I did have to link the request to one specific article, so I chose Kender because that's ongoing and there's a ton of text on the talk page, so why not?  ;) You can find the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender. I don't plan to bring regular updates here, so you might want to stick that on your watchlist. BOZ (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case accepted

The case has been accepted, despite initial concerns by many of us that the conduct issues would disqualify it. At this time, we will be waiting for the Mediation Committe to review the case and for a mediator to volunteer to take it. According to a note placed on the case page, if it is not assigned within two weeks (which would be May 12), we can contact the Committe, which we will do if necessary. BOZ (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S., after some digging, it looks like the actual mediation process happens on the talk page of the Request. It looks like we wait for a brave mediator (very brave, in this case) to take the case and open it, and then Gavin, Jeske, Sam, and myself will each be allowed to make an opening statement. It does not look like uninvolved parties can speak, but I can ask if you are thinking of saying something or if you have changed your mind about being an involved party. I will do my best to address all of the concerns you have raised, as well as any of my own naturally. I will state that there *are* conduct concerns, but since such topics are not a part of the mediation process, I will reiterate that they generally arise over the content issues and how people react to them. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Earlier today, the case was accepted by Vassyana. I don't know what the next step is other than to wait for the mediator to begin discussion on the talk page, so wait I shall. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Willis

Does anyone know if any articles have been written on Dan Willis or any of his books in Dragon or Dungeon? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Or any other magazines, for that matter. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This has confused me to no end every time I scroll past it so I must ask: You are asking if anyone has written and article on Dan Willis but in the same sentence you link to the article in question? So I guess, yes, an article on him does exist. Not sure about his work though, may check that page. Hooper (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's asking for references about Mr. Willis (which could then be used to help the wiki article). --Rindis (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep - articles about him from outside Wikipedia to help the article we have here.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, it looks like the third opinion that someone requested agreed that the notability requirement was met, even if just barely. BOZ (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's always good to have more references. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I can't disagree with that. :) BOZ (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preping for 4.0

I thought that when 4.0 hits people might get more curious as to different versions and older books and such, so I went thru the 3.0/3.5 (Template:D&D Books) book nav template page and alphabatized it all to try to make it easier to wade thru. If anyone has a better way to break it down to make it easier please feel free. If no one objects then eventually I'll move on to the older versions if they even have a nav, which they should. Also, should third-party books be listed on this nav menu? That might get quite large, maybe just a link to a "list of third party books" or something. Thoughts? Hooper (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

if you check the tempalte talk page i have long sicne tried to remove bias from it since i was unable to find the same for older editions. the problem i think people have is most boks are repeat titles. this causes a problem when you try to look for historical information on the material as the template only shows 3rd edition. the individual articles would need some sort of informaiton to distinguish via picutes, but i have not found a reasonable way to get that to work on wikipedia. it seems the newest image is all that is allowed, even thought he newest book for say 2nd edition would have nothing to do with the exisitng 3rd edition book, likewise 4th edition will have little to nothing to do with the 3rd edition books. all the D&D articles based on the game itself are riddled with bias towards the latest edition, but maybe that sort of thing can be handled once the other current issues are resolved, and we get something done with 4th edition to include its existance. shadzar-talk 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misguided for POV reasons on it being bias. In an encyclopedic context, Previous versions of this game would be historical and the current edition would be the main blood of the article. The best thing to do would be to add more parts to that template so that 1.0, 2.0, and soon, 4.0 are all represented. If we do that, it should go in an order were 4.0 would be at the top, followed in order down (i.e. 3.5/3.0, AD&D, 1.0). That way the current edition and the one most important to the meat of the article would be first. This would ease the research and encylopedic value of it. There is absolutely no bias in it. If anyone ever wanted to add the other editions, they can. It seems you are knowledgable enough to do so. Go for it. Hooper (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
ok then i agree with Gavin and all articles on D&D should be removed form wikipedia entirely, if all they are is advertisements for the newest edition, just because previous ediitons are no longer "in print". shadzar-talk 03:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not what I'm saying. Let us look at it from an example. The game monopoly will ALWAYS be Monopoly. When you mention Monopoly, you will always refer to this one. However, many "editions" of Monopoly exist. These are special ones that you would call by their sub name (i.e. Star Wars Monopoly, 21st Century Monopoly, etc.). The basic Monopoly never changes. D&D is not like this. It is a evolving game in a real world so when most people say Dungeons & Dragons they mean the game as it stands today. That will include the historical fact that previous editions existed (which is why I agree we should do whatever we can to include them) but will spend most time on how it is today. I understand there is a rift between pre-3.0 players and 3.0+ players for some reason but with both sides POVs to the side, this game is a revolving game that should be treated as such. Hooper (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the proper way to include information in D&D articles is edition-by-edition. Making the current edition paramount is an example of recentism and is to be avoided. Many D&D articles currently have a 3E-heavy bias and should be edited to reflect how the content has appeared throughout the editions. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not talking about the articles, just the D&D Books template for navigation. Yes, the main D&D article should discuss all editions with another main article that goes into more detail on each edition. I'm just stating that instead of being mad about a perceived bias on the current template, those knowledgable should just add the content, as no one is stopping or disagreeing with it being there. But for users who come to wikipedia to learn about it, it would be easier for naviagation reasons to have the current edition on the nav menu be accessed easily. That is all. Hooper (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking it should be equally easy to find and access material from each edition - everyone's got their favorite(s), after all. Should be and is are two entirely different things, of course. BOZ (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The easiest way to get around this issue would be to have separate articles for each edition's Monster Manual and such, with the main title being a disambiguation page. It will be slightly more difficult to find sources discussing the olders ones, of course. (If not split, it should be the earliest editions cover that we include in the infobox- the book infobox prefers first edition covers if possible, but that's not relevent right now.) J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is recentism at its most blatant. Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide; this is a general reference work. We should go in historical order. Just as Richard I of England comes before Richard II, etc. in templates and lists of Kings of England, so the 1st edition should come before the 2nd, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (historian who used to write for Dragon)

I disagree for the exact same reason: that this isn't a gamer's guide. Those researching the Queen of England will find an article on that royal title and one of the first things they will learn is who that current queen is. Then they'll be seperate articles and links for previous queens. I think that Nostalgia and Recentism need to work together here. We very well can't find a perfect way to show all sides, but we shouldn't let personal feelings towards which game we indivudally prefer get in the way either. Hooper (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional Note: I missed it the first time, but J Milburn has the right idea. Though being able to constitute the notability of each seperate page could be a hassle. But thats off topic. Here are our choices with the (Template:D&D Books) (this has been what this discussion is about, not all articles, for those that didn't catch that and might have replied not noticing it).
  • A) add each edition after voting in which order the should go, i.e. newest to oldest, oldest to newest. Either way, this as one whole navigation would be huge and really kind of kill the idea of an easily navigatable menu
  • B) make a seperate nav template for each edition and rename this one 3.0/3.5. This would allow us to place each nav menu on the book pages so a person could click 'show' for the one they were interested in without popping down quite as huge of a monstrocity. Still need a vote on order of nav menus.
  • C) We need to decide if by ABC title is the best way to do it, or if there is a more sensible way to categorize them
  • D) Do we only do TSR/WotC books? If so, should we atleast add a link to a list of 3rd party books?

Maybe this will get us back on topic so that people aren't just talking about which version they like. We just want to solve our template problem so that any average wiki user can use it to their advantage about the game as a whole as it stands today. Hooper (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"as a whole as it stands today" 4th edition does not physically exist. it is an unreleased product. 3rd edition is cancelled. No new material to be published by WotC. form that standpoint it would sem D&D is dead considering WP is not a crystal ball. so therefore cannot guess that 4th edition will truely be released in June 2008. anything could happen between now and then to prevent it. OGL stills exists, but that material is not D&D. STL material has until the end of the year, i think, for 3rd parties to produce "D&D compatible" material. Again that is not D&D. so for all account until June and the actual sales of 4th edition, D&D is no longer a product. the preview books Races and Monsters, and the other one may have something about 4th edition in it, but again the product could end up not making it to existance so "not a crystal ball" says nothing about it should be included. so let's look at it from another standpoint "as a whole as it stands today", people play all editions of the game still. not just the latest edition created by the current license holders. so in order to remove bias from not only the template, but all articles, you must remove all edition poking, or include all editions. otherwised it is biased towards the included editions for whatever reason. the fact that i do not like 3rd edition, has no bearing on the fact that it is called "D&D" as a product. but including it and only it is bias, thus adding other materials or such will remove that bias. Thus why i say only including the latest edition is advertising. Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. i do not like that 3rd edition ever existed, but to have articles on wikipedia unbiased, it needs to be included as well as older, and potential future editions when they become reality. shadzar-talk 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We can complain about how the template exists but that doesn't help fix it. I put up some ideas to help fix it. That is the input I'm looking for, not more complaints. By getting the template set up for all teh current editions it will be ready and have a reliable base to add 4.0 to it when it comes out. So lets stop complaining and start discussing how to fix it. Hooper (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That discussion has been open and existed on the template's talk page for quite a while now. Template talk:D&D Books#bias some ideas already exist there. shadzar-talk 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I'm asking. Do we have a community consensus with what the last editor in that discussion brought up, or should we vote. Because if we have consensus, I'm going to do it. Hooper (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
For an example of what that would look like, see User:HooperBandP/Sandbox Hooper (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
that is a big problem. considering WotC classifies ALL the 4th edition books are going to be core, then how would we objectively do it? there has been much discussion of the meaning of "core" on the WotC forums, and the verdict is split there as well. even for 3rd edition their website lists everything non-campaign specific to be core amterial. i do not know what step to take form an excyclopedic value look towards defining core. that and not all editions had those 3 core books as presented (and i agree) in your proposed template example. older edition never had them in such a manner. that is why i abandoned my version of it linked form my user page, and went looking for other things in D&D articles to fix. whenconsensus can be reached about article content in general then i think the template will jsut fall in line with that. sadly that may mean waiting until June to see what kind of mess 4th edition will make of everything D&D related on wikipedia. :( shadzar-talk 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at. But it is my understanding that the general consensus is that the core books are the MM, PHB, and DMG. This may not be stated by wizards, but it does state in the each of those books that you need those three to play, and in all other books it states that you need those three to use them. I'd say thats enough to go off of, but thats just me. Hooper (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
that is one problem i have with a template in general. it may be great to have one include all officially published books form the copyright holders (not so sure all 3rd party materials should be included), but as you can see with the list of monsters generously created by BOZ these things would be massive! i agree the only core books are the PHB, DMG, and MM, but there may be a conflict with information that may lead to confuse unknowing readers when wikipedia says one thing and WotC says another.... i don't blame editors here, but the marketing department at WotC for pusporfully making the information misleading in order to make a quick buck off unsuspecting consumers. so if we were to be able to identify the core books as those 3, then how would we include the other mountains worth of books for each edition? repeat the core books in each template for each edition? this is why i gave up, because i just didn't know, and no one else was interested in working on it at the time, while "other things" came up. i just want all editions to be represented equally. that would seem to work best for encyclopedic content. so do we just go off our own concensus here, or public consensus like places such as WotC? shadzar-talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A "core books of each edition" template would be 20-30 books or so, and not all that massive. BOZ (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration with Gavin.collins?

Given many of the statements made above in the request for mediation discussion (particularly the last segment), it seems there is a strong sentiment to skip past the Request for Mediation and move straight to a Request for Arbitration. Jéské has offered to file a case if there is consensus here. Please share your thoughts. You can be involved directly with the arbitration if you feel that strongly about it, or just support the arbitration effort. You can oppose the arbitration on the grounds that you feel we should continue with our mediation effort first, or oppose the motion for arbitration altogether (and state why) or just be neutral and watch how it goes.  :) BOZ (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, just a note for anyone who wishes to be an involved party: I need to double check on this, but I do believe that anyone involved in the dispute will be looked at just as closely as Gavin, so if you don't want to fall under scrutiny you may not want to set yourself up for a fall. BOZ (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved in the Arbitration case

  1. Web Warlock (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. SamBC(talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Padillah (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support Arbitration

  1. Hooper (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Rray (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) --> Arbcom I do not think Gavin Collins thinks he has done anything wrong and am intrigued as how mediation would proceed (I hope I am wrong though).
  4. Edward321 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Normally, I would vote mediation first, but based on this edit [1] it appears Gavin has no desire to participate in mediation, which he characterizes as a 'lynching party'.
    • I will add that what you point out was his initial reaction, but he later said this instead. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Shemeska (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I would have greatly preferred mediation first, but I'm moving to support arbitration instead after three things: First there was his initially stated refusal to take part in such mediation, which appears to have changed only after the spectre of this RfA was raised. Secondly Gavin today insinuated that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragonlance (or its editors) were a lost cause during a dispute over on the talk page for Kender, and within the past week he opened an RfC over a notability tag on the Githyanki article, and based it on an openly (and demonstrably) false claim that I believed that FAQs were reliable secondary sources. Of the 3 sources I'd added before removing the tag, none of them were FAQs, and Gavin has yet to respond to two requests to correct his statement. I think that while Gavin may honestly feel that he's acting in the best interests of wikipedia, his tone and actions have become increasingly rude towards editors who disagree with his POV or editorial stance. Attempts to find compromise with him are often met with either complete silence or a logjam of arguments and cut & pasted wikipedia acronyms.Shemeska (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record I support Shemeska claims. Gavin's tone has become increasingly more hostile. I am unsure if I am ready to change my vote back to ArbCom yet. Web Warlock (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I also agree with this to some extent… basically, I could go either way. Both make sense, and mediation seems likely to be declined. I'm happy to go straight to arbitration, but I can see the merit in trying mediation first. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the issues are primarily conduct related rather than content related. Today's snide comments are just more of the same from Gavin. If mediation is for content disputes, and arbcom is for conduct issues, then I think mediation is unnecessary. Web Warlock's observation about Gavin's comments becoming more and more hostile is spot on. Rray (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Snuppy Unfortunately, most of the issues at hand are conduct, rather than content. Some of the content issues he has raised have been valid, and the RPG articles DO require cleanup. However, Gavin has aggressively refused to educate himself on the basics of the genre and the industry, and seems to prefer demanding that others immediately fix issues he raises than providing any constructive editing himself. Snuppy 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that many (if not most) of the content issues that Gavin raises are valid concerns. The problem is that his hostile and domineering approach distracts people from actually working on an encyclopedia. And his behavior discourages collaboration. Rray 00:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I also agree with the above. --Raistlin (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. David Shepheard (talk) -- I'm very sad to say that deletionists are making it very difficult for people to clean up badly written D&D related articles. Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers and must be given time to clean articles up. AFDing bad articles does not help the long term success of Wikipedia. D&D is an important part of our culture and needs to be documented in quite a lot of detail. In 100 years people who have met Gary Gygax and other important D&D figures, will not be alive. It is vital that all this information is compiled in our generation, so that future generations can have the option to find out about the roots of this hobby. Delitionism (especially deletionism-under-the-guise-of-notability-claims) undermines encyclopedic documentation of things that are still in copyright. Wikipedia policy needs to take copyright restrictions into account when claims of notability of fiction come into play. I realise that Wikipedia needs bad articles to be fixed, but delitionists usually do nothing to support the effort to fix articles and just cause stress to the people who are trying to fix things. People who really want to help fix bad articles should either edit those articles (and add in missing sources) or report those articles to an appropriate Wiki-project. If this Wikipedian is unwilling to work with others and if he is unwilling to go to mediation then I suggest that you take this straight to arbritation. I'm sorry if he feels that this is a lynch mob, but with deletionists waving a flag of 'Wikipedia notablility policy' and AFDing things faster than other people can fix them, it is inevitable that one of them is going to have to be involved in a test case. I just hope the arbritration is kept civil as deletionists often think they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia. We should be assuming good faith...and so should he. —Preceding comment was added at 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In the interests of fairness, I must point out that, as far as I am aware, Gavin accepted criticism of his (for want of a better term) campaign of AfDs, and no longer puts these articles up for deletion, tagging them instead. The tagging has been taken as somewhat aggressive, which is the problem now. SamBC(talk) 12:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation First

  1. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC) on the condition that I have at least some input into the "Issues to be mediated", and that a mediatior is independent of RPG articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you asking for an independent mediator or a mediator who has no knowledge of D&D. I think that asking for a mediator who hasn't been involved in any arguments with you is a reasonable one. However, asking for a mediator with no interest in D&D is unreasonable. A mediator needs to be a neutral person who understands the situation. Someone with D&D knowledge can work out what is notable and what isn't notable. But if they understand D&D they are more likely to have made some edits in articles. So your condition would seem to exclude people who have enough knowledge to know if you are in the wrong.Big Mac (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Orangemike - I'm always willing to support mediation, but am not sure what Gavin means by some input into the "Issues to be mediated"! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I have been involved in a few ArbCom cases and it is a real drain on your time and effort. After going through it, you will have gained five negative levels, and be permanently drained of 10 points of constitution. (Did I get the D&D rules right?) Try to avoid it, and use it only as a last resort. Note that I am not a D&D editor.
  4. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation first. Try this for structured dialogue using uninvolved editors first ("uninvolved" meaning previously uninvoved in the issues to be mediated). I view ArbCom as one of the "measures of last resort" when other means fail. (Note: I might be classified also as one of the "involved" parties, I don't know.)
  5. I would suggest that mediation is at least attempted before an arbitration request is made. I have not been following the above discussion closely but my input was requested. Catchpole (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation first, where Gavin can add to the list of items needing mediation, since I believe there he has issues to raise other than "how can we get Gavin to agree with us or at least shut up". (Neither a direct or indirect quote.) In my opinion, there are assumptions of bad faith and bullheaded ignorance and stubbornness on both sides, and mutally agreeable mediation is a necessary step towards resolution of the issues. Mediation should be approached as a tool for gaining consensus, not as a weapon.
    Arbitration is a difficult and exhausting process (Sjakkalle, you got the D&D rules right as far as I can remember, but I'd add in the loss of 5 points charisma -- even the "winners" come out of Arbitration looking worse than they entered), and, anyway, it's unlikely to be accepted by the Arbitration committee unless a strong effort at mediation is tried first.
  7. harlock_jds (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Since he is open for mediation (and has his own issues) that seems to be the best action. Seems like both sides are frustrated here so good may come out of it.
  8. Freederick (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I was initially going to sign under "Involved", but since Gavin Collins himself is declaring that he will submit to mediation, it is only fair to begin here.
  9. Bilby (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Given that Gavin is willing to engage in mediation, I see no reason not to give it a shot. And I have no hassles with his involvement in determining issues to be mediated - mediation should go both ways.
  10. Indeed, if Gavin is now happy with mediation then that's fine; I'm not sure what the conditions he places mean, as mediation will, per necessity, involve conduct issues, and criticism of conduct could be taken as flaming. If Gavin is saying no-one can criticise his conduct, then mediation won't work. If Gavin assures us that such criticism is fine as long as its civil, then great. I certainly have no problem with Gavin criticising my conduct, or anyone else's, as long as it's civil. The other we'll have all have to avoid doing is repeating ourselves, as that's a problem that's been happening on both sides. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. It won't hurt to try mediation. I'll admit that I'm not optimistic, but if there's a chance, we should at least give it a shot. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. I do have concerns that the issues that people will want to end up focusing on are 'out of scope' for RfM, however, I really do think Mediation is the proper step. --Rindis (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Agree. Gavin now says that he is prepared to take part in a mediation, so it's time to get that started. AndyJones (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Agamemnon2 - I support the use of an uninvolved mediator, and urge that we find the means of presenting our grievances to said mediator as legibly as possible, in that our beef with the user in question is related to a wider issue of how to apply notability and notable-sources criteria on this field, an issue from whence, I understand, the crux of the current fracas is derived.
    • And the meaning of OR and Synthesis, and a few other issues of policy interpretation... SamBC(talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Gavin is a tough case, or at least he was when I was involved with him. Sometimes his actions are a bold and needed move, other times the same action can be outright vandalism when applied to a different article. I think the issue is one of judgment and of working with other people, and mediation may help with that if all parties go into it with good faith...but I really don't think arbitration will at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation is preferable to Arbitration. I will admit to not being optimistic given Gavin,collin’s reluctance to date to work with the various editors. One thing I feel must be addressed, and stopped, is his continue harassment of other editors with his “cease and desist” posts to their userpages. It is a bulling tactic to force the outcome he wants by quelling their desire to continue to work on Wikipedia. Gavin is not an admin and he has no say in what others can and cannot do. We will work with consensus, if the consensus says something is so, then Gavin (and any other editor) needs to know to walk away and leave it. Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. McJeff (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I think mediation is preferable to arbitration, and the major reason for Arbitration was Gavin's reluctance to participate in mediation - with his agreement to this, there's no need for Arbitration at this time. McJeff (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  18.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC): I believe that mediation is an appropriate next-step. However, it may only be a stepping stone to a Request for Arbitration. If the extant issues can be resolved via mediation, then this is only a positive. If the extant issues cannot be resolved via mediation, then arbitration becomes necessary and/or appropriate given the nature of Gavin.collins' tone and contributions to the articles in question. With regard to the caveat about "Issues to be mediated", there has already been a whole lot of Wikilawyering and a distinct lack of civility and assumption of good faith. I am hopeful that the Request for Mediation does not degenerate into additional Wikilawyering; if it does, the process comes to a standstill and the mediation fails in its objective. It is obvious that Gavin.collins feels very strongly with regard to his point of view regarding science-fiction/fantasy articles, and while it has been said that some of his edits have been bold and necessary, there is clear evidence to support the idea that many of his edits are not necessary - which leads to the supposition of vandalism. If the Request for Mediation fails, certain other issues will almost certainly arise from his conduct on Wikipedia and will reflect negatively upon him, particularly his initial refusal to engage in the Request for Mediation. Essentially, I am leery of the effectiveness of this stage of conflict resolution, but ultimately feel that it is a necessary step and very hopeful of a positive outcome.
  19. Kairos (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I'd prefer an attempt at mediation first. Though I do not hold out much hope.
  20. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - just stepping in to say that you can add your support here if you like, but we've already submitted the Request for Mediation so it's immaterial other than to reinforce the idea that we're doing the right thing. :)

[edit] Oppose Arbitration

[edit] Neutral toward Arbitration

  1. As I stated before, I've only had the one interaction with Gavin, and while he was very dismissive of anything I presented, I think he is doing what he believes to be good for Wikipedia. I could be completely wrong in that view, but that's how I see it. I also don't think mediation is appropriate as this is more of a conduct issue than an actual content dispute. Any mediation request will likely be rejected because of that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I have had no contact to speak of with Gavin, but from a purely theoretical perspective would support taking things slowly and carefully. If it is in the will of the majority to mediate prior to seeking arbitration, so be it. If arbitration moves forward, I caution the group to be civil and choose wording carefully so as to be precise in meaning. Baron (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I was invited to comment here because I commented a long time ago in an RfC about Gavin's many AfD nominations. However, I haven't seen more AfD's from him in a long while (mostly because I don't look at AfD as often as I used to) and haven't had any other interaction with him. Therefore, I will abstain from participating in this mediation/arbitration because I don't have any recent information to add. --Itub (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding Arbitration

I'm a recent entrant into this whole mess with Gavin, but so far I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks (false accusations of violating 3RR, accusations of POV pushing, and a statement that I was a vandal and deserving of a ban). My opinion on skipping the RfM is only because Gavin refuses to participate. However, I think that's the biggest problem we are dealing with - Gavin believes he is exclusively right and anyone who disagrees with him isn't worthy of consideration, therefore, he refuses to work collaboratively. I support a RfArb, and would be happy to help with gathering evidence. McJeff (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • oh heavens to betsy! i know less about this than i do about the RfM. but i will help in whatever way i need to, if i can ever provide help at anytime. i will not object to this, as i really do not know what it all is. but knowing so little about it and the RfM even i do not know if even my support would help. maybe i can just hide fixing assessment templates until someone calls me as a witness. whatever it takes to help solve the problems so we can get back to editing articles i am all for, just tell me when to stick my nose into it and what is needed from me and i will do what i can. confused shadzar-talk 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to point out; anyone who feels that they have been personally wronged by Gavin is an "involved", while those who've witnessed it and agree that arbitration is needed are in "support", generally speaking. I gather this is likely to be somewhat akin to a class-action suit. SamBC(talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a comment regarding this above. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • i couldn't care much about being banned form here or not, i try to help where i can, with a very short temper IRL. for me it may be just the point of i do not need the other frustration right now. of this sort of thing. even with collaboration and consensus, there should be some administrative level that steps in and says what needs to be done when something is out of hand. some sort of "complaint department" type thing. everyone trying to work it out since Oct 2006 has gotten us little to no where so far. so i don't see that doing any more will do much good, unless someone actaully makes a decision and does it. its enough work to sort through all the tags for the tens of thousands of pages of D&D material to see what goes where this just delays all of that on a massive level, and i would rather just make decent articles than be involved in some playground fight. not saying editors are acting like a bunch of kids, but.... some administrative level personnel should have stepped in long ago in my opinion. so as i said, IF my input is needed for anything in this formal or informal process, then ask and i will help in anyway i can, otherwise my contributions log stands for itself. this fight has just exhausted me. shadzar-talk 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • At the moment I will state that I am unsure which way to go at this point, and will observe discussion above in deciding. Please do note that Gavin is apparently not as closed to the idea of mediation as some people have speculated (see above), so we may indeed go with that as the next step. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to persue all your objectives, just keep me in the loop by letting me know what is happening on the my talk page. One thing I found really annoying about the current mediation proposal and the previous RFC was that I was not told about them until the last moment. If you are drafting something, give me little chance to respond before or during the drafting process. Let me at least have sight of the draft in when it first appears; its a minor procedural point from your perspective, but from where I stand it looks like I am being ambushed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Naturally. I would have informed you of the RfM by the time we had decided to persue it, but you were already aware of it by then. At the moment, I don't know where we'll be going, but it will follow the consensus of the group. We'll have to wait and see. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My observation is that Gavin seems to crusade against gaming articles from a generally hostile standpoint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The conseuquence is huge amounts of tedious Wikilawyering and I suppose that this will be more of the same. I doubt that Arbcom will have a simple answer but I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to ask. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I received an email from Davenbelle (i.e. Jack Merridew) with regards to this; he's been watching everything that's going on here and believes that there isn't much controversy. As sits, he's holding off the appeal of his ban and has suggested that, should he return, he'd participate in any ArbCom case involving Gavin. I fired off the current feeling here as well as reasons why arbitration is being considered. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I forgot something: Mediation will not look at conduct problems. I was in an RfM (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-28 Bates method) which was closed after the mediator determined that the problem was behavioral, not editorial. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So then, that brings some questions to mind. We know that Gavin is willing to engage in mediation. Because of this, several editors (including one who initially wanted to become involved in an RfArb) support sticking with mediation, making the consensus as I write this more than two-to-one in favor of an RfM as next step. That makes me wonder, do we go ahead with RfM as planned, knowing full well that it may simply be rejected and that our attempt may be nothing more than a formality because of that? Worse case, if we do submit such a case knowing that it has a high probablity of being rejected and then using it as a formality and stepping-stone to go to RfArb, will that reflect badly on us? Should we just try anyway, noting the content issues and stating that conduct issues arise from them, and let the mediators decide if they want to even bother with this case? BOZ (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that making an earnest attempt at taking this to mediation is the right way to go. We will present discuss the content issues, while being honest that conduct issues are involved, to see if the mediators can help the situation. If they decide that the conduct issues are too intervowen with the content issues then they can decide not to take the case. I think we have more than enough to go on to present a mediation case based on content issues, but all editors involved must make an earnest effort to stick to the content issues and to leave the stuff about how much they don't like each other and whose feelings are hurt at the door (and there are plenty who are sore and itching for a fight). I'm willing to do that, because the last thing I want to do is sabotage my own efforts to bring about some peace. BOZ (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, in the interest of painting this thing by the numbers, that we should have on record that mediation was attempted, or at the very least, have it noted by an external party, i.e. the mediators, that it is not feasible. It will cost time and tedium, but when in doubt, follow procedure. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, edit conflict got in the way of my above paragraph. :) Jeske, if you still want to go with an RfArb now rather than waiting for an RfM I will still help, but I think consensus has shown that my initial feelings are correct and that an RfM is the correct next step - even if it turns out to be ultimately futile. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to note: MedCab may not handle conduct, but will MedCom? (ie, no informal mediation, but maybe formal?). I'm not sure whether mediation would be appropriate; the question can only really be phrased as either conduct or interpretation of policy and guidelines. Maybe someone on the Mediation Committee can advise us? SamBC(talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
MedCom also looks to be unwilling to take on behavioral disputes. From WP:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection#Issues not appropriate for mediation:

Requests such as "please stop this editor from making POV edits," "a mediator is needed to convince this editor he is wrong," "you need to mediate this issue before I have to take him before the ArbCom," and others of this nature are not appropriate issues for mediation. Mediators do not issue judgments; they aid the parties in coming to an agreement. If the request does not clearly state one or more issues on which the parties wish to come to an agreement, then the mediation will not be accepted. Requests which seek to have a mediator help "prove" that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate. All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement, and that neither side will "win."

That help? -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, OK... so it's looking more and more like a WP:SNOWBALL case.  ;) What we need to decide is does that mean we should not proceed with an RfM, or that we should just give it the ol' college try just once anyway? I'm still in favor of bringing it up no matter how hopeless it is, because, you never know. If mediation is just completely unsuitable for this case, then I'm willing to do a revote, either after we file an RFM and fail, or if we conclude that filing an RfM would be a bad idea. BOZ (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a whole lot of assuming good faith above - especially from people who may have some pretty negative feelings about Gavin in general - and to not follow their consensus somehow would doing be a disservice to them as well as Gavin. If an RfM would absolutely fail, is there another alternative that has more teeth than an RfC, but is less severe than an ArbCom case? BOZ (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
None that I know of. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, given that... two of the editors who originally stated ther intent to be involved in an RfArb case changed their mind to support RfM first, making it now a more than three-to-one majority in favor of going with RfM as originally proposed. I know you don't feel much of a point in doing that - you're not the only one - but my gut keeps telling me we need to give that a shot first, and support is massively in favor of it. If it's destined to fall apart then it will, and hopefully before too much time and effort has gone into it, but if it has any shot at all of not working then we'd be fools for not trying. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my last word on the matter. Although my conviction behind my position is not strong because I'm torn by valid arguments in favor of going to RfArb which I happen to agree with, I still say going for an RfM is the right thing to do, even if it's not the one that makes the most logical sense. I also don't want to see an RfArb fail because we didn't at least try an RfM first. Regardless, I am more than willing to go either way on this issue, as I suspect are a number of other editors involved in this dispute. I'd like to hear from Jeske what he wants to and I think I'd like to go with that. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree to mediation first, but as the issues are more conduct than content I don't think mediation will be any help for the reason I quoted above. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - it's basically ready to go. :) BOZ (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Jéské. Hiding T 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the disagreements are content based, and I think you will find that this is attributable to the strong views all concerned which has given rise to an assumption of bad faith on all sides. I can see why many editors are upset by my robust language if there had not been any content dispute at all. If anyone feels slighted in any way, I am happy to discuss these issues with them on a one to one basis on our respective talk pages. However, it cannot be a one sided discussion like the one on this page, as I been a witness to some editing behaviour which from my perspective appears to to be extremely irregular and disfuntional. So if anyone wishes to discuss their particular gripe with me, I invite you to so in good faith, but I would ask that our discussions are honest and also take into account how your editing behaviours that gave rise to our disagreement appears from my perspective, not just my response to them.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'll answer them, I have several questions which I have asked you before about reasoning behind various edits and a lack of knowledge about a topic that calls certain edits into question, and one particular issue that has yet to be addressed (falsely attributing statements to me when you filed an RfC on template placement on the Githyanki article). In those particular cases you've thus far refused to answer despite being approached about them multiple times. If you're serious about what you wrote above, those need to be addressed and not just ignored. I'll write them out and place them on your talk page, and hopefully you'll take the time to read over and address them all. It would be appreciated.Shemeska (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have specific complaint (like being ignored), take it to my tallk page for a one to one discussion: I will respond honestly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to note, the only reason discussions here may have been in any way "one sided" (which they haven't; there've been several opinions on the nature of the problem and how to deal with it) would be that you (or anyone who agrees with you on the issues at hand) hasn't spoken up. No-one was kept away, and AIUI you're no stranger to this page. SamBC(talk) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books Nav Menu

After above discussion, here (User:HooperBandP/Sandbox) is my sandbox example of a possible, non-edition-bias menu. Suggestions/thoughts are appreciated. This would require making those list pages, however, though I have no problem handling that process. Hooper (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CM Modules

I'm not really a member of this project, but I just copyedited all of the CM module articles (CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, CM6, CM7, CM8). For starters, I made them all into real articles, but I also cleaned up the wikilinks, removed unused sections, etc. If I violated some D&D WikiProject Law or Guideline, then smack my behind with a melon rind, but that's my wikignome state of mind. Cheers! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look pretty good from here but I don't know a whole lot about the modules. Thanks for the help though. Baron (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight irregularity in the monster lists...

Don't know if it was already resolved or not, but I just ran across a web enhancement for one of the 3.0 books (Ghostwalk, to be exact) and it contains some templates and, further complicating things, update rules for 3.5 that adjust stats to coincide with the structures of 3.5. Looking on the Wizards website, many many books have such enhancements or updates that may or may not contain additional monster information. Are we going to do anything about this, by which I mean, do you want me to add them in for this case and in the future? I would say we should maybe do the book itself and the web enhancement in its own box right below it on the 3.0 page and then have some special thing on the 3.5 list page which contains references to the updated monsters, but this might be redundant. I guess I favor redundancy to information loss... Baron (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the templates as i understand them are not really monsters, but a way to alter existing mosnters. for example to make a vampire gnome or something you add the vampire template to the gnome race. the list just catalogues monsters with full given stats. since the monster lists exist to prevent each non-notable monster from having its own article, but being included, then the templstes really dont fit as a monster itself IMO. shadzar-talk 10:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from but then again many of the templates come with a sample creature that was created and is fully statted out which leaves me with mixed feelings regarding their inclusion in the list. I guess I tend to side more toward more information than less, and for the moment I'm going to leave the templates in the lists I put up. We can certainly remove them if the decision is made to remove them. In fact this may be a good time for everybody to weigh in and make that decision so that we can put some sort of note on the list pages so that people adding books or working on the lists don't freak out and start adding them or removing them or whatnot. As far as the other bit regarding the web enhancements, I would say let's leave them out for now and simply do what is listed in the books. If other people have an opinion and believe the web enhancements should be added, then please chime in. Baron (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can handle this issue by whatever makes the most sense. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragon paths and epic destinies

How should we handle these? IMO the best options would be to list them in a "list of paragon paths and epic destinies" article or separate "list of paragon paths" and "list of epic destinies" articles. We could also incorporate them into the "list of prestige classes" article, which is already fairly long, or the individual class articles, which would be problematic if not all PHB paths and destinies are class-specific, or if non-class specific paths or destinies are introduced in future supplements. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So far they just seem to be another thing like class abilities, so I would say placing them with other similar things should work. shadzar-talk 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psionics

Right now, psionics information is divided between Psion (Dungeons & Dragons), the list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes and spells of Dungeons & Dragons. I think that these articles and sections should be merged into a single article: psionics (Dungeons & Dragons), with more details on psionics in earlier editions, and on the other SRD psionic classes such as Psychic Warrior. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan on going through with the merge some time next week. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. It totally needs doing. Ford MF (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I'm Troy McClure

Hey look, Troy McClure just became a featured article! That might make a good example of how a fictional element can be written up to make a good article. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Jéské Couriano. You may remember me from such films as "Fight for Sources", "Revert Renegades", and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Saw that. What strikes me is that a lot of the sources for the article are from the Simpson episodes, aka primary sources, themselves. Now if that were the case then certainly characters like Paladine who plays a major role in the Dragonlance franchise could be raised to a similar level. After all Troy is only a "minor" character who no longer even appears in the The Simpsons. One (albeit a very particular one) could even say he was nothing more than one of hundreds of stock characters in the Simpsons. Of course we all know what is really needed here, Itchy & Stratchy to be raised to a feature article. After all a fictional show within a fictional show should never be on Wikipedia. Web Warlock (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, or how about the Krusty the Klown Show? Of course, according to the Wiki article on Krusty (if we can believe the Guardian) we have "In 2003, Krusty was included in a special history of Jewish entertainers exhibit at the Jewish Museum in New York City." Shocking! A fictional character being included in a special historical exhibit! We know that "awards" or "honors" such as these never mean that the fictional character being honored is in any way notable.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I detecting some tongue in cheek from Mr. Warlock?  ;) BOZ (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe just a little snark. ;) Web Warlock (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that Webwarlock isn't quite right when he says that most of the references in the Troy McClure article are the episodes themselves. In fact most of the citiations from #9 on in the reference section are not Simpsons episodes but are from other sources such as interviews, articles and books about either the Simpsons, Phil Hartman or about Troy McClure or other Simpson's characters. Also note that while there is a section of the article that summarizes Troy's appearances in episodes, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the article deals with real word topics like how the writers came up with Troy as a character and how they dealt with Phil Hartman's death by retiring the character.
Presumably in order for a DnD related character to receive featured article status, it would have to have similar treatment. That is, it would have to have a good portion of the article devoted to real world topics and use sources other than just the rulebooks or novels in which the character appears. 63.111.163.13 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4th edition ships early/leaks

Seems like yesterday there was a leak, possibly from a printer, that has seen brand manager Scott Rouse taking action to find online PDF sources of leaked copies of the core books. Also Buy.com and maybe even Amazon seems to have shipped copies out 10 days prior to the street date and people have been getting them in the US all day long in the mail. Others report being able to buy the books from local stores. How should we handle this here? Should anything new wait the remainder of the 10days for the offical street date of 4th edition, or should we not try to watch for these things, and just correct them after the official release date? shadzar-talk 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until we have the book(s) in our hands. :) BOZ (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So we should not worry with any changes to the D&D articles based on advance release of the books, and jsut let them happen until we have the books to verify the information, or until therelease date and allow information to come out since we can not disprove anything without the books ourselves? shadzar-talk 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No information is published until the publication date. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on wiktionary's definition of publish, they would technically be published as soon as someone makes them publicly available under definition 1, and would technically be published as soon as the publisher ships them to the retailers under definition 2. Are there any guidelines or precedents for handling broken release dates? -- Gordon Ecker 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dare to dream

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/19-year-old-gamer-becomes-mayor-of-oklahoma-town/1215787 :) BOZ (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

John Tyler Hammons - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms WikiProject?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms - BOZ (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kender

OK, Gavin seems OK with it, and I have cleared it with the mediator Vassyana, so I am soliciting some assistance with this current part of the mediation process.

One task is to find sources for the article. This includes not only finding third-party sources to firmly establish the notability of kender, but also sources to use as citations for the information currently in the article, or for information that is not in the article but should be, or if you have any suggestions about good places to find references. If you feel bold enough, you can post the source directly on the page; otherwise you can post on this talk page and it will be copied to the sources page.

You can also help with the trim page; however I would ask that you not edit the project page itself, but post specific ideas on the talk page if you feel bold, or post here otherwise.

Please, if you do post on any of the above mediation pages, try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments to a minimum (avoid them completely as possible), as that can easily degenerate into the typical sort of argument and kill the mediation process. BOZ (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea where to look for sources that establish notabilty? This search doesn't come up with much besides book reviews of Kender, Gullydwarves, and Gnomes and some stuff that's not in English. White Dwarf? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the puzzling conundrum! BOZ (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've ordered a copy of The Annotated Chronicles, which I've found some good info from before, but if someone already has a copy it might be worth flicking through for useful tidbits. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made any extensive search online, through Google Scholar, The British Libary, UK News Archive and found nothing. I suspect the only chance of finding an article that features extensive coverage of Kender will be found in a US newspaper, so if anyome has access to a US newspaper archive, I suggest looking there.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, those searches won't look at the full text of every reliable source, or even "all but US newspapers". There have been indications of coverage in early White Dwarf magazines (back before WD was company-specific; I'm not sure there's even much connection between old White Dwarf and modern White Dwarf). There are also online reliable sources, but it takes some work to evaluate them. SamBC(talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Fictional Characters Guidelines

Figured I'd bring this to your attention, since I think it's something that affects everyone here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Ford MF (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southeast Faerûn PROD

The Southeast Faerûn article has been put up for PROD. If this proves to be the consensus then, to be consistent, the Faerûn and Geographical index of Toril trees should be examined for PROD candidacy. I have no particular preference; it's nearly impossible to prove the notability of these FR sub-topics. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the same user has PRODded a number of Forgotten Realms articles, including Silver Marches‎, Shining South, Silverymoon‎, Southeast Faerûn‎, Shaar‎, Baldur's Gate (city)‎, Chultan Peninsula‎, Cold Lands‎, Cormanthor‎, Dalelands‎, and Cormyr‎. Additionally, he nominated the Dragonlance novel Wanderlust for AFD. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think most of these could be merged into a couple of articles. I have no knowledge of Forgotten Realms myself (I am a Greyhawk guy) so I would not know where to start. Web Warlock (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Faerûn would probably be a good place to start.  ;) BOZ (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And, with that, I'm going to begin redirecting these articles into Faerûn today; something tells me Faerûn will stand up to deletion for now. If anyone wants to do any merging of info, or restore the articles later when sources are found, well the edit history will be there for you to peruse. :) BOZ (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge assessment template with WikiProject Role-playing games

I think that it would be a good idea to merge the assessment template {{D&D}} as a parameter in the assessment template {{RPGproject}}. Every article in the D&D projects should also be grouped in the RPG project, though not the other way around, so merging the templates his should streamline assessments and make the list of included articles for both projects more complete. For an example on how this works, check out how the United Nations wikiproject's assessment is done through a parameter of the international relations wikiproject, for example at Talk:UNESCO. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)