Talk:Dungeon (games)

Original Research?
A crapload of this article seems to be original research, or at the very least, uncited. I'm throwing an unreferenced tag on it for now, but I think I'll put an original research tag on it in a couple days if nothing changes. T. S. Rice 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. The fact that it is undocumented/uncited does not necessarily make it original research. It makes it an attempt to categorise encyclopaedically a particular concept. It could do with some citations and more underpinning, but the 'No original research' tag is really, well certainly in my view, a tool for ensuring NPOV and overall neutrality of articles and protecting the encyclopaedic nature of WP from some of the er, how shall I put it, more eclectic (litotes mine) views on life, the universe and everything from some of the er, er, more original researchers. As an example, the article could very well go on to talk about one-way doors in dungeons (a stock and deeply hackneyed device of bored D&D dungeon masters) and although virtually no documentation exists on the subject of one way doors in dungeons, anyone who has played D&D will know exactly what is being referred to. Now this would be uncited and undocumented but it wouldn't be original and it certainly wouldn't be research. Sjc 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of WP:V clearly states 'Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.'. Just because one group of people will instantly get the reference doesn't mean it belongs uncited and unsourced in an encyclopedia. The article should be more geared towards outsiders, not an in-crowd who don't need to be told where to look for the proof. The Kinslayer 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that it contains articles on things that simply would never be published elsewhere, either due to lack of interest or perceived lack of merit. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of subjects that have already been published, therefore some articles will be 'original'.
 * As the bit I quoted from the Wiki rules show, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY fact in Wikipedia should be able to be demonstrated at another source if demanded/requested. If an article that lacks merit and interest in the entire rest of world is included in Wikipedia, I can guarantee it wont last long (but feel free to show me some examples, I love getting them deleted!) It's down to 2 little essential parts of Wikipedia: WP:V and WP:N. Go read them and come back when you know you what your talking about. The Kinslayer 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
see Talk:Dungeon crawl