D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Captain Tagon]

Its my understanding that this criteria was originally put in for things like somebody putting themselves on there, or local bands and fanzines.

Then the question becomes why shouldn't local bands and fanzines be on there?

 

[Pale Master]

Wow, I seem to have opened up a can of worms. Cool. Time to get a bigger can.

I like wikipedia, and I see its primary strength as being a source of information about relatively obscure or ephemeral phenomena.

I don't agree that wikipedia's standards are arbitrary or "esoteric." And I don't agree that there should be a page on , for instance, Hruggek or The Forest Oracle. But something like Monte's RtToEE or White Plume Mountain - that's "notable", at least with regard to D&D. White Plume Mountain was referenced in Baldur's Gate II, for one thing, so it meets the "notability" rubric in that regard.

But it definitely wouldn't seem that way to someone with no familiarity with D&D. But by the same logic, the designated hitter rule would seem pretty esoteric to someone not familiar with baseball. And I freely invite you to look at the wikipedia article on the designated hitter rule.

So I agree that this is probably the work of some asshat with the mentality of "I've never heard of this - It's too obscure for anybody to care about!" I guess all we can do is keep adding sources and citations. "Is it notable now? ... How about now? ... Is it notable yet?..."

 

[wingsandsword]

Then the question becomes why shouldn't local bands and fanzines be on there?

Speaking as a wikipedian that has been responsible for the deletion of hundreds of articles about local bands and other "speedy deletion" worthy material, here is a brief summary of why those kinds of articles are deleted on sight.

1. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. A good rule of thumb is that if you're notable enough to be on wikipedia somebody completely unaffiliated with you/your band/your club/your company will create the article. These garage band/fanzine/school club articles are typically blatant advertisements in glowing terms and read more like press releases than impartial encyclopedia articles. Because of a lack of sources, other editors can find great difficulty in making an impartial encyclopedia article on the subject.

2. Notability. The general rule of thumb on Wikipedia with regards to articles about bands is that they have to have made at least one song or album that placed somewhere on a major sales chart (or some other equivalent sign of success/fame/notability). If you haven't even ever placed anywhere on a chart, you probably haven't been very notable in the music world. One example from my experience on Wikipedia was the article on the band NB Ridaz, which was nominated for deletion as non-notable, but since one album they released once briefly made it to #62 on the Billboard Rap/Hip-Hop charts meant it pushed them just over into being kept. Just because a few friends got together once, practiced in a garage, and played a local club a few times does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia article. As it's sometimes put, will anybody care about it in 10 or 20 years? With most of these tiny insignificant bands (or fanzines or whatever) in a decade or two nobody will remember them and even the members/writers may well have forgotten about them. Wikipedia is for things that are expected to stand the test of time to at least some degree.

3. Verifiability. Stuff on wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable by independent sources. Tiny local bands probably don't have much media coverage besides maybe a listing of when they will be playing, they probably don't have books and magazine articles about them, and all the information in the article exists just because the person creating the article says so. Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source, everything there is supposed to be sourced by some outside source that any wikipedian can theoretically go and check. With garage bands that's pretty much impossible.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

The greatest issue I can see regarding notability as it applies to RPGs is one due to IP. There are certainly many aspects and items within RPGs that are notable, and plenty that aren't. However, finding a "reliable secondary source" for many items in RPGs is limited simply because copyrights preclude the use of said aspects in secondary sources.

Consider, for example, Vecna. He has a history, has been involved in many different products, and even has a non-TSR/WotC tale associated with him (The Head of Vecna). I would argue that there are no doubts as to the character's notability. However, virtually every reference to Vecna can be traced either to a published primary source (TSR/WotC), or to a "fansite". Green Ronin, for example, couldn't write about Vecna and publish it. There is little call to discuss Vecna in a newspaper.

In fact, the size of the RPG industry is a limiting factor for notability itself. Third-party industry groups/websites (such as ENWorld and RPGnet) are also themselves gathering places for fans. I myself have written an adventure, have been paid for it, and had it published, but I would consider myself a fan more than an industry member. There are very few "professional" RPG product reviewers out there. Some are respected, sure, but they aren't making a living at it.

So, how does notability apply to Wikipedia when secondary sources are all but precluded?

 

[wingsandsword]

The greatest issue I can see regarding notability as it applies to RPGs is one due to IP. There are certainly many aspects and items within RPGs that are notable, and plenty that aren't. However, finding a "reliable secondary source" for many items in RPGs is limited simply because copyrights preclude the use of said aspects in secondary sources.

Consider, for example, Vecna. He has a history, has been involved in many different products, and even has a non-TSR/WotC tale associated with him (The Head of Vecna). I would argue that there are no doubts as to the character's notability. However, virtually every reference to Vecna can be traced either to a published primary source (TSR/WotC), or to a "fansite". Green Ronin, for example, couldn't write about Vecna and publish it. There is little call to discuss Vecna in a newspaper.

Actually, I believe the "head of Vecna" tale was retold in a column once in Knights of the Dinner Table (and some strips have been run parodying it).

That would be a secondary source for Vecna, including the "Head of Vecna" tale, that's a non WotC/TSR source that's an actual published magazine independent of the primary source that discusses the Vecna character/artifacts and it's relevance & notability to the gaming world.

 

[Thurbane]

And I don't agree that there should be a page on , for instance, Hruggek or The Forest Oracle.

Are you serious? The Forest Oracle is noteworthy, just for how badly written it is!

I still LOL when I read this:

A group of seven men approaches. They are following the road east, and are making good time, neither tarrying nor running. Their faces are expressionless. One is dressed as a cleric of some sort, and another is dressed as a traveling drummer. The others could be peasants or serfs going from one location to another for the harvest season. Each carries some sort of weapon. It is plain that they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking. They do not seem to be joking loudly or singing as they advance.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148566

 

[Felnar]

Video game articles don't have these problems.

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

Cheers, -- N

my first thought was to compare it to other literary fiction
but clearly i'm on drugs

even individual books from the "Choose your own Adventure" series have their own pages

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

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

Perhaps entries on the modules can be compiled into a single section, like how secondary characters from on-going series all have there own entry but share a page. That might reduce the requirement of notability.

A really, can’t most of the modules be handled effectively together?

Of course, some people set their standards too high…

 

[jaerdaph]

Erik Mona is now my new hero, if only because he's helping to bring back one of my favorite descriptors for a-holes of all time, "douchebag".

This Bud is for you, Sir.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

DnD is not the only thing that runs into "notability" problems on wikipedia. The only cure I've found is to create a wiki at wikia, where "fancruft" as a term simply doesn't exist.