Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:12, 19 June 2012

Greetings, David Shepheard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. It's good to see new folks showing an interest in the place and wanting to improve the articles. Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, feel free to drop by my talk page and ask. I'll do my best to provide you with an answer. If you're more of a "research it yourself" type, there's always Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question. The Help Desk is also a good place for info.

Whenever you leave a comment on someone's talk page or on the Help Desk page or whatever, remember to sign your name. You do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) in a row at the end of your comments or questions. This will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome to Misplaced Pages. → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, too! -- Perfecto  05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Spelljammer novels

Hi Extreme Unction, and thanks for welcoming me.

Today was my first day on Wilkipedia and I was baffled to see my first article wizzing around the either almost as soon as I finished typing it. I've read all the things that you suggested, but saw more how to advice rather than when two things are one subject advice. I thought that an article about role playing and an article about novels (even if they are based on the same setting) would be two different things. The List of Forgotten Realms novels (which I based my article on) certainly seems to be a separate thing.

How do you work this sort of thing out? I'd be interested to know so that I can decide what to do in the future.

Big Mac 05:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It can be a bit overwhelming for a new user. I consider myself fairly internet savvy, having been playing around online in various capacities since 1995 (and having been on BBS systems before that since 1981), and even I found the Misplaced Pages process rather byzantine. One page over here says this, and another page over there says that, and you just sorta have to get a feel for it over time. It really does come with experience.

I guess the first thing worth pointing out is this: You didn't do anything wrong. Your article wasn't moved because you screwed up and violated some sacred tenet of Misplaced Pages. You did absolutely the right thing by making an article that will improve Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages now has content it didn't have before, thanks to you. All that has happened is that I, a slightly more experienced editor, came along and saw how your information might be more usefully organized. I ran into the same thing when I first started editing, and I still run into it now that I've been here for a while. If you stick around, you'll do it too, eventually.

The thing is, if you felt really strongly about it, you could absolutely revert every change I made. You could, if you wanted, restore List of Spelljammer novels to its state prior to when I merged and redirected the article, and you could remove the Spelljammer novel section from Spelljammer. You could do all of those things and I couldn't stop you. (Well, that's not 100% true. I could stop you, because I'm an admin. It would be very much against the rules for me to do so, however, and I would get yelled at by many people. So I wouldn't. Well, I wouldn't anyways, because I'm just not that big of a jerk. So even if nobody at all would yell at me, I still wouldn't do that.)

(Where was I?)

(Oh yes.)

So anyhow, you could make those changes and revert all that stuff back to the way it was before I started mucking about with it, and nobody could stop you. Of course, they could turn around and change everything right back to the way it was before you changed it back, and then you could change it back to the way it was before they changed it back, and so on and so forth. But that just gets ugly in short order, so we don't recommed that.

Under ideal circumstances, if you do something, and then someone comes along and makes a change to what you did, and you have questions about that change, you go to the article's talk page. Every article has one. The Spelljammer talk page is at Talk:Spelljammer. You leave a note on that page saying "Here's what I don't understand about why you did what you did" or "I think it was better the other way because..." and hopefully you can make them change their minds or they can change your mind, and everybody goes away happy.

This is what you've done already on Talk:Spelljammer, and I've responded there with my reasoning of why I did what I did. Hopefully you will find it persuasive. If not, you can respond to me with a counterargument, and maybe I'll find that persuasive. Or maybe not, and I'll respond back to you. And so it goes, until hopefully we reach a compromise we can both agree on.

By the way, you'll notice that I've taken the note you left me on my talk page, and reprinted it here (in italics) on yours. I did this so the conversation won't be fragmented, and so you'll get the spiffy "You have new messages" notification. But it's not required or anything. If you leave someone a note on their talk page, some folks will respond on their talk page as well, while others will respond on your talk page. So it varies. But if you leave someone a note on their talk page, it's a good idea to add their talk page to your watchlist for a couple of days, just in case they respond on their talk page and not on yours.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions you may have.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 06:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to go moving things back, I just wanted to bounce a couple of things off of you to see what you thought. I agree that bouncing things around would be silly (and would probably damage Misplaced Pages in the long run).

I'll do the things you suggested now (reading the talk page and putting you on my watch list) and I hope that editors won't want to move my things about in the future because I hope I can get things spot on the first time.

See you around.

Big Mac 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S.

Here's a little something I wrote years ago...
→ Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an even smaller thing I wrote...

Big Mac 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done. Did you ever see the Crystal Sphere someone made up on the old Spelljammer mailing list that was filled with water? That would be a good place to stick your Aquatic Elves... =) → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 07:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't but I'll look out for it at some point in the future. Thanks for the heads up.

Big Mac 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found a post on the SJML about a crystal sphere called Fluidspace. That might be what you were talking about. Big Mac 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Something you may want to consider

Big Mac:

I see you're still going at it. Hope you're enjoying yourself.

Just a thought about Spelljammer: It might be better to have the sections for the Website and Computer game above the lists of product materials. Generally speaking, most[REDACTED] articles that have both prose and lists put the lists at the end, so that you can read the actual meat of the article before getting to the lists.

Another thing you may consider is to turn the Spelljammer Novels section into a subsection of the product line, rather than leaving it in its own section where I put it. Just seems like it would make more sense to have it as part of the overall product list, rather than "Here's the products. Oh, and here are the novels, too."

Anyhow, these are just suggestions which I thought I'd float past you. Let me know what you think.
Ξxtreme Unction| 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'official SJ website' section is different to the rest of the stuff I just added. You might have a point with what you said about that. The website is a 3e thing so does need some sort of separation to help people see that. I suppose the original article (which I didn't write) might need something on it to mark the fact that that is what happened for 2e AD&D. Then the 3e website stuff I added could be put after that. I do think it needs a subheading - I think all D&D products need subheadings to separate 1e D&D, 2e AD&D, 3e (WotC) D&D and 3.5e D&D. Often campaign settings have very similar products issued again and again as the RPG editions have increased.

The bit that says: "Several of TSR's other campaign worlds had their own sections..." would be a good place to put in a 2nd Edition (AD&D) subheading. I've got a couple of problems with what is written after this point:

1 I certainly do not like the two references to 'solar systems' which I know is incorrect for Spelljammer (they are called 'planetary systems').

2 I also question the stuff about Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Mystara. Dark Sun and Ravenloft are ignored with the original boxed set which concentrates on the 'Radiant Triangle' (the collective name for 'Greyspace', 'Krynnspace' and 'Realmspace') but are mentioned briefly in the Complete Spacefarer's Handbook. I think that the person who wrote this has not refered to all of the Spelljammer products or they would not have said what they did about two of the settings. In my opinion (and as I understand it facts and not opinions are supposed to be what I am writing) I think that these advanced settings were only ignored in the original boxed set because they were awkward to integrate. I think that if Spelljammer had gone on TSR eventually would have included them. As for Mystara, I think that was ignored only because it was already discontinued, I don't Mystara is worth a specific mention there (but if Mystara does get mentioned at all then the Mystaraspace conversion on the official Mystara website should get a link).

I'm not entirely sure where to go with the existing stuff. You have far more editing experience than me on this sort of thing. However, what feels right, at the moment, is to look to see about taking out references to the settings that were not included, then document Spelljammer in as close to chronological order as possible, mentioning briefly what each product did to change the SJ universe. For example there are quite a few spheres that were added before the Astromundi Cluster boxed set (Clusterspace). I'd add Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Mystara back (along with any other TSR settings) but only to show how they are being added to Spelljammer.

Back to the 'computer game'. This mainly needs to be a cross reference. A lot of tabletop roleplayers will not be interested. The same goes for 'novels'. You are suggesting that Spelljammer products and novels should go together, but I think that may cause ambiguity. People that do not do tabletop games and/or read roleplaying books, may not realise that a book, like Into the Void, would never be used in any tabletop game. In fact I know that some Spelljammer fans actually dispute 'facts' from the Cloakmaster books. Some don't consider spin offs as 'proper' products.

The thing about table top role playing games and spin offs like novels and books is that a lot of people do not consider the spin offs as official, or 'proper' products. Those people would not want to even see anything about the computer game or the novels in the article. (That is why I originally put the novels in a separate article.) If they do have to be in the same article as the (so called) 'proper' role playing stuff then there should be a clear destinction of some sort.

Maybe I should move both the computer game and novel sections down - maybe I could have a 'Spelljammer spin offs' section with both the computer game and the novels (and the original comics if I can find anything out about them).

I'll have a think about it while I am reading my email and come back to this later.

Big Mac 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

More inane procedural blather from Yours Truly

BigMac:

FYI, it is generally frowned upon to seed the main body of an article with external links. The philosophy is "If you are linking to an article or other content outside of Misplaced Pages, it is better to incorporate that content within Misplaced Pages somehow, and then link to it internally." m:When should I link externally has some informative discussion on the matter.

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help.

Big Mac 00:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongols

It's called vandalism, and it sucks up a lot of time and energy. However you caught that less than a half-hour after the vandal struck. Thanks for doing your part. Shenme 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what was going on.

Big Mac 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

D&D wiki project consensus

A call to all members of the D&D wiki project. We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project. The dispute is as follows. 1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Misplaced Pages article. Vote on preemptive or wait.

2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.

email me at Dm2ortiz@aol.com or post on the D&D wiki project talk page

Fair use rationale for Image:SJ3e-Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SJ3e-Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please note that the same also applies to Image:Spelljammer-Netlogo.gif. Cheers --Pak21 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I could have sworn that I did add text to provide this information when uploading these images. You have already deleted the images and changed the page that used them. I don't have time to do anything about it now.Big Mac 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

D&D articles for Misplaced Pages 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Misplaced Pages DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite BOZ. I would love to help out however, I have two problems:

1. I'm very busy at the moment and
2. The ever changing strategy of the D&D delitionists means that I am currently unsure what sort of standards WikiProject D&D is pushing for.

Incidentally, whatever message you put over there has been yanked by another wikipedian, so I'm not really sure what the 0.7 push was intended to do. I've had a look around the project, but there currently seems to be a lot of discussion about specific delitionists and a talk about what sorts of monsters should be in a list. In that discussion, there is yet more mention of the notability of specific D&D monsters. Maybe next time you want to promote something like this, you should create a subpage at WikiProject, so that we come in on a page that isn't a mobile talk page.

You have my moral support (for the good work I know you are doing with these articles) but at the moment, I don't have time to help out with a generic D&D Project. If I get any free time, I'm much more likely to lend it to the Creature Catalog conversion effort or one of many other projects, where my help may be challanged, but (probably not on the grounds that it isn't worth reading). I've got no problem with constructive criticism of my work (as it helps me improve) but the delitionist horde seem to offer no useful advice and always seem to pitch the limited amount of feedback they provide in terms that don't help wikipedians improve the articles that they created badly.

In any case if I do any more D&D work on Misplaced Pages, I would be far more interested in promoting knowledge of the Spelljammer Campaign Setting than generic D&D. There is no WikiProject to help out a lot of the smaller D&D campaign settings and (if it wasn't for the constant threat of delitionism) I would like to redress that balance and help ensure that future generations have a full record of how D&D works.

I think it may be worth improving the WikiProject D&D page, so that it links directly into tutorials and guidelines that help people edit D&D articles in a way that satisfies any claims of notability and also complies with some sort of agreed standard for D&D. If the people in the project can get that sort of thing going, I will try to ensure that any future edits I make to Misplaced Pages are done in a way that will outwit the delitionist horde.Big Mac (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, you missed all the fun. :) I think we got a few into the release, but I guess we'll find out soon enough! BOZ (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on your talk page. Big Mac (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting - feel free to add to the RFC if you haven't already. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Giff

Thanks, and you're welcome! :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragonlance GA

Hey there! Just letting you know that we have nominated Dragonlance to be a Good Article, and it is currently up for review. :) BOZ (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. You commented on my talk page earlier, but I'm not sure if you noticed. :)

I don't know if you've taken a look, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to this on your talkpage. I hope to see some SJ related articles in the GA section at some point. Spelljammer would be nice, but I'd also love to see some other D&D giants (like Jeff Grubb) get a bit of love. And, although I've not played it, I'd love to see some of the minority settings (like Jakandor) get some attention too. Big Mac (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I tossed the list of TSR works mentioned by Allen Varney on his article - forums are on the list of unreliable sources, so unfortunately we can't rely on them for information that would otherwise be difficult to verify, but I'm sure we can assume that finding his name in some credits wouldn't be hard. :)

As far as getting more creators to GA, Dave Arneson is next on my hit-list! Grubb has some definite possibilities, and he's on my list of things to look at. Spelljammer is a definite down the road possibility, but Jakandor might be pretty difficult if it hasn't been reviewed by an outside reviwer. BOZ (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ankheg

Hello,

Because you participated in the previous AFD for Ankheg, I am notifying you that it has been nominated for AFD again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Afanc

This at least the third or fourth D&D-related AfD in which you fail to provide any comment based on actual policies and ignore the issues formulated in the deletion nomination (mostly insufficient or non-existing sourcing/notability).

Instead you provide us with very lyrical explanations of how you subjectively consider the topics as the greatest ever, usually making up grotesquely exaggerated descriptions which do not correspond to the existing article, indeed trying to make them pass for what they are not (D&D article suddenly become "studies of this part of folklore and the gaming culture", which they are not since they're purely plot summaries).

This problem got worse today with your comment on Afanc, since your reason for keeping the article ("the similarities and differences between the two things help study of this part of folklore...") isn't actually contained in the article at all, and the actual state of both articles doesn't allow to make such a comparison. Which means that if the article was kept, this study of "similarities and differences" would have to be done. But you don't provide any source for doing that and the article contains none, meaning that the analysis should be done by contributors themselves, meaning original research.

WP:AFDFORMAT tells us that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Misplaced Pages’s article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion.".

It's the third or fourth time that I have to remind you that you're not contributing in a proper way to AfDs, so I don't think you're willing to understand how to contribute in an acceptable way. AFDFORMAT continues:

"But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

I don't want to go through a dispute resolution process so I hope you'll understand what I'm saying here. But if your behavior in AfDs continues like this, we will have to come to that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)