D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Pale Master]

Wikipedia has quite a few articles on classic D&D modules, and even plot summaries in some cases, but most of them are pegged as possibly being non-notable.

Are D&D modules notable? (By wikipedia standards, I mean). And how would you convince someone of that fact? Is there a D&D-specific wiki that's better suited to that kind of thing?

 

[Thurbane]

I've noticed that several D&D related articles on Wiki are pegged the same way, including description of the default 3E Gods, monsters etc.

The skeptic in me thinks they may have been given a not-so-gentle nudge to remove "older edition" (i.e. pre 4E) D&D related items by WotC so as to concentrate attention on 4E.

I'm probably just being paranoid.

 

[Erik Mona]

It's basically just one deletionist being a douchebag and undoing everyone's work in the misguided opinion that he is helping Wikipedia.

The site is, unfortunately, swarming with ass-faces like this guy, and there's basically no reasoning with them.

I have pretty much given up on it, because while mofo can spend every day on Wikipedia nominating stuff for deletion and adding inappropriate templates that question the notiblity of all D&D-related pages, I don't have the time or energy to fight him on it.

So dicks win. Again.

 

[RangerWickett]

We need to get Vin Diesel to make a series of D&D-module movies. Then they'll be notable.

Is D&D mythology less notable than Sumerian mythology? D&D mythology is still alive.

 

[Rabelais]

I've loved, and played D&D for a looooong time. I can't really see how a 25 year old module is really notable. Maybe as a group, all bunched up into a single Wiki-entry... but honestly, they're really not that notable

In the most recent "Did you know" entries, there have been a lot of entries describing Michigan Wolverine football players from days of yore.... like the '30s '40s and '50s. Wikipedia is chock full of entries that are not notable.

Here's what I found for Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

This article may not meet a proposed guideline for notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)). If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
This article has been tagged since December 2007.


Merging might be a good way to go for many of these items.

Is D&D mythology less notable than Sumerian mythology? D&D mythology is still alive.

Sumerian mythology will at least get you 4 credit hours closer to a degree.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

The tagger does not appear to be a deletionist; check the World of Greyhawk Wikiproject for details. Instead, the tagger wants to bring attention to these articles--are they important enough? Are they better served in a particular category instead?

For example, the Ravenloft campaign setting is not marked, nor is the original Ravenloft module (I6), which makes a lot of sense. There are verifiable influences that I6 had on the game. However, the Ravenloft list of domains is gone (I think it's sad, but understand), and Azalin Rex is tagged for notability. Incidentally, the Olman article was deleted, but the Rhennee article was kept--that I can't agree with, but I can just reopen the Olman article and present an argument to keep it.

So, if you've got a favorite module or character that has been tagged for notability, demonstrate its notability. Has it influenced future RPG design? Does it contain something iconic that has entered into the D&D culture? Has someone referenced it in a thesis or article? Things like this will demonstrate notability.

So go out there and save your favorite modules.

 

[Thurbane]

It's basically just one deletionist being a douchebag and undoing everyone's work in the misguided opinion that he is helping Wikipedia.

The site is, unfortunately, swarming with ass-faces like this guy, and there's basically no reasoning with them.

I have pretty much given up on it, because while mofo can spend every day on Wikipedia nominating stuff for deletion and adding inappropriate templates that question the notiblity of all D&D-related pages, I don't have the time or energy to fight him on it.

So dicks win. Again.

Wow! Don't hold back!

Seriously though, I'm in total agreeance with you on this one. If that's what's happening, then Wiki is suffering from a serious illness that needs to be cured before it's terminal.

I have no idea why, for instance, Iuz is not considered noteworthy, considering how many sources are cited in the article and how many years of publication history are behind the character, when some much more esoteric and more poorly cited articles don't have that annoying flag attached to them.

Probably just some bitter little twerp who got evicted from his weekly game and now has a grudge against D&D.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Okay, on second thought, I've gone through and read the user's talk page; lots of people are complaining about his use of notability tags across wide swaths of science fiction and fantasy over a period of months. Ignore what I said earlier.

 

[messy]

It's basically just one deletionist being a douchebag and undoing everyone's work in the misguided opinion that he is helping Wikipedia.

The site is, unfortunately, swarming with ass-faces like this guy, and there's basically no reasoning with them.

I have pretty much given up on it, because while mofo can spend every day on Wikipedia nominating stuff for deletion and adding inappropriate templates that question the notiblity of all D&D-related pages, I don't have the time or energy to fight him on it.

So dicks win. Again.

but how do you really feel?

messy

 

[Ripzerai]

If a book is published, it's notable. I can see complaining that someone's webcomic that three people read and never updates (to pick an extreme example) isn't notable, and honestly a lot of the really obscure monstrous deities from Monster Mythology probably don't deserve entries of their own (any more than every minor Terry Pratchett character does), but I don't think it's at all inappropriate for Wikipedia to be a database of every book ever published.

We've been adding a lot of these articles to the Greyhawk Wiki, and help would be appreciated.