Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greyhawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk Wikipedia page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Nice! I was getting antsy for this! Let 'er rip!--Iquander 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Extra sections 2 Subpages 3 D&D Style 4 Project template 5 New style references 6 Userbox 7 Combining articles 8 Vecna 9 Project Directory 10 Timeline

[edit] Extra sections

This page was created automatically with a template, hence all the different sections. I've already deleted ("title"), added, & renamed a few, as I felt that would better suit our purposes. Does anyone have proposals for futher deletion, addition, or renaming? I'm thinking of deleting several of those at the bottom. We can re-add them later, if we feel the need.--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages

At some point, we will probably want some structure/style subpages for different categories of article, such as "Greyhawk places," "Greyhawk deities," "Greyhawk magical items," & "Greyhawk characters."--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D&D Style

I realize that I am more obsessed than most people (by necessity) with the accepted D&D style guides, but I think we should probably write role-playing as one word, "roleplaying," as TSR and Wizards of the Coast do. I know that's really minor, but in all cases I think we should err on the side of what is accepted practice for the publishers of the game. Yeah, I'm anal. Welcome to my life. :) --Iquander 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's similar talk over at the RPG Wikiproject. I really don't care either way. The Role-playing game article uses the hyphen, but the roleplaying article doesn't. The former article should probably be moved to roleplaying game, too. I guess I'll start writing it without the hypen & see what happens.--Robbstrd 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iquander as well. No hyphen. Fairsing 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project template

I created a template to add at the top of the talk pages of all GH articles. I based it on a similar template used at the RPG wikiproject. Comments?--Robbstrd 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) You can see the template at Template:ProjectGreyhawk. To put it on a page, use {{ProjectGreyhawk}}.--Robbstrd 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New style references

I've added a sub-section on new style references with some examples. Feel free to update, alter, expand or remove. It's really just a suggestion based on emerging practices Wikipedia-wide. -Harmil 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, this method essentially footnotes references. This would be better served under a "Notes" section, since "References" should be alphabetical.--Robbstrd 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I merged this into the "Notes" section above it. See [1] & [2] about maintaining separate notes 7 references sections.--Robbstrd 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit. References is the section in which References go. The <references/> tag exists for this reason. However, there's currently no reasonable way to integrate auto-generated references from footnotes with general references that are simply placed in the References section. Because of this, large, featured articles have these sections in duplicate, listing all of the references in citation order in the Notes section, and then again in alphabetical order in the References section. This is, frankly, awful, but it's what we have. Wikipedia's technology is still struggling to keep up. In small articles (which is what almost all of the Greyhawk articles are) this is not required. We will typically have something like a module, whe the References section will list the module and perhaps a re-printing as a general reference for the whole article, or we will have an article for something like a deity where sources come from all over the canon. In cases like that, we'll proably want to stick to inline, new-style references, as there aren't any references that cover the whole article anyway.

I think it would be bad practice to start using 2 forms of referencing in GH articles, which is why I advocate adding a "Notes" section. Not everyone who writes GH articles is going to take the trouble to cite everything they use when writing an article, nor does everyone who thinks a reference should be listed want to go over someone else's work to determine exactly which source the information came from. I'm afraid insisting all references be in "cite-form" would turn people off from adding them at all, whereas "bibliography-form" would be more acceptable to many people. Let me clarify that I'm not against using the "cite-form" entirely, only that I think that those who wish to cite instead do it under a "Notes" section.--Robbstrd 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see a need to have a Notes section UNLESS you mix the two types of references, and that should almost never happen. Instead, we can either write a References section manually or auto-popluate it using <references/>. If that section gets beyond, say 5 or so references (just to be totally arbitrary), then perhaps it makes sense to go all featured article on its associated parts and do the big duplicated Notes/References thing, but on the scale of stubs and short articles this is just cumbersome for the author and the reader. -Harmil 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to have both notes & refs for two reasons: 1) more uniformity; & 2) the possibility that someone will come along and expand the article further, including adding more references that might not be cited in the article, but are relevant nonetheless (particularly for future expansion). As for placing the least authoritative references first, I believe this is countered by having the notes section before references, as well as by having links to those footnotes in the article's text. You'll note that many academic works will have both foot/endnotes & a bibliography, which is essentially what the references section on Wikipedia is. Honestly, it would probably be better if all reference sections were relabeled as "Bibliography", but then thousands of articles would have to be changed.--Robbstrd 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you and I clearly don't agree (which is fine, and I respect that), we should probably fall back to Wikipedia policy, which is more along the lines of what you suggest. Notes should contain the <references/> and References should contain the alphabetized list of general references (which may be the same as, superset or subset of Notes). -Harmil 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Could I perhaps suggest an alternate userbox?

-Harmil 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you are wondering, I got the background color from one of my favorite Greyhawk module covers: Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. -Harmil 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks great, but the only thing I'm worried about is that the image may not be considered fair use. A number of FR deity symbols were recently removed for the same reason (see this user's talk page.--Robbstrd 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, of course. Silly of me. Let me think about it. I'm sure I can come up with an image that's reasonable copyright wise and more emblematic than a bird. -01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There we go. How's that. Closest castle image I could find to the old Castle Greyhawk image that's being re-done for the cover of Expedition to Castle Greyhawk next year. -Harmil 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining articles

Glad to see that Baklunish Basin survived its recent AFD, but I do think that Pablo-flores' "Closing Comment" here [3] may make sense for some of the geographic features and minor characters. I don't see any glaring problems here that require immediate action, but might be a good idea for us to keep the suggestion in mind as we go forward with the project. Fairsing 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish that AfD had been mentioned here, I would have voted. Still, I would have voted keep conditionally. I think that it should be merged into two articles, but one of them doesn't exist yet: Baklunish Empire. As such it should be kept until then. My general feeling is that any feature smaller than the Flanaess should get its own article only if:

• It is the primary subject of a module or the like that has its own article. E.g. Barrier Peaks.
• It is called out in the source material as a nation-like region (e.g. Amedio Jungle or Bright Desert)

Otherwise, it should typically be merged into the next higher-scope article that does have its own page (e.g. Flanaess or perhaps the nation which contains the feature).

PS: Note that while some of my examples are redlinks, they do have links to them. -Harmil 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning behind merging Baklunish Basin into other articles, even though I personally feel every Greyhawk subject should have it's own article (yeah, I know--I can go a bit overboard:). As for what to include geographically, I think anything that has it's own entry in one of the three main Greyhawk campaign setting products (the 1983 boxed set, From the Ashes, & the LGG) should have its own article. This would include all nations, as well as places like the Phostwood, the Good Hills, and the Solnor Ocean. In addition, certain geographical features or collections of states have commonly-accepted names that are found throughout Greyhawk sourcebooks, such as the Sheldomar Valley, the Ulek states, and the Tilvanot Peninsula, so I'm not sure what should & should not be merged. Also, a number of nations & features share(d) the same space as a geographical feature, such as the Sueloise Imperium/Sea of Dust & the Bright Desert/Empire of the Bright Lands. In the last case, the LGG has separate entries for both, so I think articles for both would be appropriate (for a real-world example, look up Australia). Then we also have the problem of cities. Should Radigast City, Rauxes, & Rel Mord have their own entries? In general, I would advocate improving articles rather than merging them. Perhaps we could start a section on the project page listing articles needing improvement? We could give them a certain number of days, & if not improved within that time, they could be merged.--Robbstrd 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certianly with you when it comes to wanting it all ;) However, when it comes to Empire of the Bright Lands vs Bright Desert (just for an example), I think we should seek to cover geography and political divisions in the smallest number of articles. This isn't because both aren't important, but because most of the information about greyhawk is about the politics and personages, not the geography. We know trees from EGG, and we tend to have a bit of geography in some of the moudles and sourcebooks, but there's nothing when compared to the detail on political aliances, betrayals, wars, etc. With fiction, you have a limited amount of source material, and we should at least have the potential of creating a non-stub for every article about Greyhawk. -Harmil 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vecna

Just wanted to let you guys know, the recent issue of Dragon Mag (Oct. 2006 - Issue # 348 has a lengthy article on Vecna by Sean Reynolds and Samuel Weiss). Would have left this comment on the Vecna discussion page, but I've never edited Wikipedia and couldn't figure out the right place.

Safe travels,

Paul

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

[4] Given that we have a Timeline of Faerun, why not something like that for Greyhawk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.11.242 (talk • contribs) .

There already is one: World of Greyhawk Timeline.--Robbstrd 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Added it to Category:Fictional timelines.