D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Yair]

I don't get the notability clause at all. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it allows anyone to build up and share his knowledge. The less note-worthy pages should be sequestered to remote areas, accessible only through a series of links from more prominent issues, but why delete an entry because it isn't noteworthy? As long as the entry is true, and certainly as long as there are more than one person interested enough in the subject to edit the page (hence supposedly far more people interested in reading on the subject) - it's worthy of being included in Wikipedia IMO.

 

[Shroomy]

There is some really, really obscure stuff on Wikipedia (and I enjoy reading it) so I can't see how D&D adventures (or any D&D content) is not not notable by their standards.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

That's the thing about ridiculously inconsistent standards.

 

[R_kajdi]

The inconsistency thing is a big part of it, as is the push for wiki to become "more legitimate".

This guy is a griefer, just the same as those open source zelots who are working on replacing all fair use pictures off of the site. There's pretty much no way to stop him, unfortunately. You can try the dispute thing, but that's just as liekly to get you screwed over as him. Wiki has made an active effort to challenge articles, which has just opened a door for the kind of obsessive jerk who's out there to ruin stuff for everyone else.

 

[wingsandsword]

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

By wikipedia logic, D&D mythology isn't very notable because not a lot of sources outside TSR/WotC have written books on Pelor, Grummsh, Vecna, Mystra ect, while doubtless many scholarly works, dissertations ect. have been written on Sumerian mythology.

Then again, to wikipedia a primary source is considered unreliable and untrustworthy while secondary sources are considered all but unquestionable, so the scholarly logic of that place is a little odd.

So:
Fictional deity in a fantasy world that has been a top seller for the last thirty years with millions of books sold and is well known to many people. . .non notable and people will fight for it to be deleted.

Obscure ancient deity from a multiple-millennium-dead mythology known to very few people outside academia and subject of a handful of journal articles and maybe a book printed a few decades ago by an academic press in a small print run. . .unquestionably notable and fighting for it's deletion will get you branded as trying to "disrupt wikipedia".

I like wikipedia, I have over 2000 edits to my name there, but their notability and sourcing requirements are esoteric to say the least.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't get the notability clause at all. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it allows anyone to build up and share his knowledge. The less note-worthy pages should be sequestered to remote areas, accessible only through a series of links from more prominent issues, but why delete an entry because it isn't noteworthy? As long as the entry is true, and certainly as long as there are more than one person interested enough in the subject to edit the page (hence supposedly far more people interested in reading on the subject) - it's worthy of being included in Wikipedia IMO.

I agree, those criterion seem bizarre. It isn't as if wikipedia is a print encyclopedia and they have a page limit or anything. So long as the information is true and the source of the information documented, IMO wikipedia should be a repository for all sorts of facts.

 

[Nifft]

Video game articles don't have these problems.

If only D&D were more videogame-like...

Cheers, -- N

 

[ShadowDenizen]

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.

Heh. Awesome. You're my hero, Erik.

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 also agree.
I want to like Wikipedia; I really do.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing Wikipedia as an experiment that is failing. I think the orginal idea behind Wikipedia was great, but unfortunately (as is often the case) it seems that a handful of people are really giving it a bad name, by trying to exclusive, rather than inclusive.

 

[BOZ]

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.

yeah, that's pretty much my take on it. the "Gavin"-ator has been a real pain in the ass, but he seems to have slowed down. don't know if that's because he feels he's tagged most of what he wanted to get, or because he's busy in real life, or because his success rate at the articles-for-deletion has been hit or miss.

but yeah, he's got plenty of like-minded fellows over there, which was why i originally gave up on submitting new D&D articles. c'est la vie. if the standards ever change, i'll probably get back to it.

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.

yes, i will reiterate that, please post to the Greyhawk wiki. i've added a few articles myself, mostly so far those very same "really obscure monstrous deities from Monster Mythology [which] probably don't deserve entries of their own," which i originally placed on wikipedia in the first place.

 

[Grog]

That's the thing about ridiculously inconsistent standards.

Too true.

I think this comic sums up Wikipedia quite well.