Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D&D Modules on Wikipedia
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 4215838" data-attributes="member: 14159"><p>I certainly know quite well the frustration that comes from deletionists and goalpost-moving on Wikipedia.</p><p></p><p>I spent several years and a hundred or so edits polishing and working on an article about a martial art I practice. It's a relatively small art (maybe 1000 or so practitioners that have earned ranks in it, and about a dozen schools) and relatively new (founded twenty five years ago). </p><p></p><p>When I started the article, the rule was for something like that to be "notable" it had to have non-trivial mentions in multiple non-self-published media sources, so that there could be independent sources for fact-checking. Each of the schools had a number of articles about them from local newspapers over the years, there are also a couple of books about it. Those were just fine for sources and I made what I thought was a pretty decent article using them, with a few citations from their official website here and there.</p><p></p><p>They started shuffling around the citation and sourcing rules, so that now any magazine article, book, or website produced by anybody with any affiliation with the martial art is now "vanity" and not reliable. Never mind that the books were published by large and well known publishing houses that produce lots of respected martial arts books. Never mind that the articles were in Black Belt Magazine, the most popular magazine about martial arts. Because they were made by somebody with an interest in the school (even though it was independently edited and published) it is treated as "vanity" and unreliable.</p><p></p><p>Somewhere along the way, the deletionists got to Martial Arts articles, and got this idea spread around that unless a system was 100+ years old or had over 100 separate schools it wasn't notable. They never got that put into a formal policy, but they shouted it often and loud in deletion debates on martial arts articles so much that they got other people to treat it as if it was policy. So, they moved the goalposts and an article goes from being obviously notable, to obviously non-notable.</p><p></p><p>So, between the two an article I put a lot of labor trying to get up to "Good Article" status gets ripped apart as having no "reliable" sources, then being "non notable" and put up for deletion as being far below the "100 years or 100 schools" pseudo-guideline.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 4215838, member: 14159"] I certainly know quite well the frustration that comes from deletionists and goalpost-moving on Wikipedia. I spent several years and a hundred or so edits polishing and working on an article about a martial art I practice. It's a relatively small art (maybe 1000 or so practitioners that have earned ranks in it, and about a dozen schools) and relatively new (founded twenty five years ago). When I started the article, the rule was for something like that to be "notable" it had to have non-trivial mentions in multiple non-self-published media sources, so that there could be independent sources for fact-checking. Each of the schools had a number of articles about them from local newspapers over the years, there are also a couple of books about it. Those were just fine for sources and I made what I thought was a pretty decent article using them, with a few citations from their official website here and there. They started shuffling around the citation and sourcing rules, so that now any magazine article, book, or website produced by anybody with any affiliation with the martial art is now "vanity" and not reliable. Never mind that the books were published by large and well known publishing houses that produce lots of respected martial arts books. Never mind that the articles were in Black Belt Magazine, the most popular magazine about martial arts. Because they were made by somebody with an interest in the school (even though it was independently edited and published) it is treated as "vanity" and unreliable. Somewhere along the way, the deletionists got to Martial Arts articles, and got this idea spread around that unless a system was 100+ years old or had over 100 separate schools it wasn't notable. They never got that put into a formal policy, but they shouted it often and loud in deletion debates on martial arts articles so much that they got other people to treat it as if it was policy. So, they moved the goalposts and an article goes from being obviously notable, to obviously non-notable. So, between the two an article I put a lot of labor trying to get up to "Good Article" status gets ripped apart as having no "reliable" sources, then being "non notable" and put up for deletion as being far below the "100 years or 100 schools" pseudo-guideline. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D&D Modules on Wikipedia
Top