Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 34

News from the Eastern Front
Okay, this is turning out to be a fairly lengthy project. I think I finally have a nearly complete list of the existing 197 monster name redirects for porting:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons/Monsters/Porting_project

Of those, 47 have already been completed:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons/Monsters

I spent a little effort trying to build a useful field-guide-style table around them; hope you like it. (I'll probably split the table into separate articles once it gets long enough.) If you spot any other redirects that need to be added, please let me know (or you can add them to the list yourself). Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, a large majority of the Wikipedia monster article redirects were implemented by anonymous user 204.153.84.10 prior to 2010. Hence, not a "member" of this WikiProject. FYI. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dwarven subraces
Can anyone provide a list of sources for all the subraces and campaign-specific dwarves at Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)? I'm trying to figure out a way to trim those sections back to the essentials without losing good information. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 16:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if primary sources can be used in that context. As long as the entire article is not based on primary uses, then my understanding is that those can be used in certain circumstances. After notability is established, then a key goal is reliability, which primary sources can be useful for establishing. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec x 2) Yes, I think that's correct. It would just be helpful if people familiar with all the sourcebooks could post where in them the information comes from. I've got the Forgotten Realms campaign setting books, and I'll be going through those later to get the information for those subraces, but I don't have the others mentioned. —Torchiest talkedits 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, rolling it back to where we began a few days ago:


 * Aleithian dwarves - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psb/20030926a
 * Azers - see that article's publication history list
 * Badlands dwarves - Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand (2005)
 * Deep dwarves - Complete Book of Dwarves (1991), Player's Option: Skills & Powers (1995), Monster Manual (2000)
 * Dream dwarves - Races of Stone (2004)
 * Duergar - see that article's publication history list
 * Frost dwarves - Planar Handbook (2004)
 * Glacier dwarves - Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow (2004)
 * Hill dwarves - should be obvious
 * Mountain dwarves - Monster Manual (1977), Monstrous Compendium Volume Two (1989), Monstrous Manual (1993), Player's Option: Skills & Powers (1995), Monster Manual (2000)
 * Seacliff dwarves - Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave (2005)
 * Need anything else?


 * Good work on the article so far, by the way. Hopefully you can lend a hand on Bruenor Battlehammer as well, now that it's at AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good start. I'm hoping to get page numbers and such as well.  As for BB, I've started looking, but I'm not finding a whole lot beyond what's there already so far. —Torchiest talkedits 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you're adding sources now. So that's what the additional reading links were there for!  Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have the books in front of me, but I will do what I can. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm angling for trying to get the article to good status at this point.  Does that make me a bad person? :) —Torchiest talkedits 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, not at all. More power to you! BOZ (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons)
I've added some sources to Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), one of the articles that were redirected, but I'm still looking for more reliable sources. If anyone has some non-sourcebook sources that could help establish notability, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've spent the past few hours pouring through tons of references looking, but I'm sure other people have access to sources that I don't. Any help with sources for the article would be greatly appreciated. - SudoGhost 01:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that; I appreciate you taking the time and adding content like that. I know how time-consuming it can be. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD notice
To ensure that everyone is aware, there is an AfD Articles for deletion/Adherer regarding 3 articles that had been listed but were removed from consideration a recent mass AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope Expansion/Rename Proposal
In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, and 2) non-TSR sources like Paizo/Pathfinder are out of scope because they're not D&D sources. While each individual argument might have merit, taken together they reveal a problem with the scope of the project that can be easily remedied in a couple of ways:

Proposal 1: Rename WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons to WikiProject Fantasy Role Play
Dungeons and Dragons is clearly the first RPG that popularized fantasy role play, and would remain the primary focus of the Wikiproject. TSR created a number of the earliest commercially viable role playing games regardless of genre, and several other publishers of fantasy role playing games, including Palladium, Iron Crown, Mayfair, Games Workshop, Steve Jackson Games, and Chaosium. Likewise, many of these publishers have themselves branched out beyond "fantasy" role play--indeed, GURPS and Rifts, by Steve Jackson and Palladium games respectively, focus widely on the cross-genre possibilities of a universal RPG system.

At the same time, by expansively naming the Wikiproject "Fantasy Role Play", it becomes abundantly clear that the scope is not limited to TSR-published content, and thus articles on RPG topics will not be so limited. Downsides include losing the D&D specific branding and associated enthusiasm.

Proposal 1: Support

 * 1) As proposer. I suppose I could indicate relative preferences between the 1.x series of proposals, but I think any of them would adequately address the objection, so I leave it to the community's input as to which, if any, should be adopted. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Opposed

 * 1) I don't think this will satisfy the one or two complaining editors, per RedPen's response below, and my own reservations.  Although I do think that a WP:FPRG would be a great task force for WP:RPG, if there is anyone interested in being involved in that. BOZ (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this would overlap with WikiProject Role-playing games too much. - SudoGhost 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1 Rename and move Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons to a Fantasy Role Play task force under WikiProject Role-playing games
This is a bit more of a drastic move than proposal 1, but also acknowledges that there are more similarities than differences between D&D and other FRP games, and RPG's in general. At the time Wikiproject RPG (Jan 2006) and Wikiproject D&D (Oct 2006) were started, the trend was to have a "flat" Wikiproject namespace, with overlapping Wikiprojects and no task forces.

The downside is that we lose the D&D distinctive branding, and that may be a real drawback to some folks because of the game system's longevity and popularity.

Proposal 1.1: Support

 * 1) Per my support for proposal 1, above. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1: Opposed

 * 1) This is more drastic than proposal 1, and I wasn't in favor of that to begin with. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2 Move Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons to a Dungeons & Dragons task force under WikiProject Role-playing games
The reasoning here is mostly per 1.1, with the added caveat that the D&D specific naming is retained, even though the scope is somewhat clarified by the adoption of this move. All D&D specific "branding" is simply renamed from a WikiProject to a Task Force.

Proposal 1.2: Support

 * 1) Per my support for proposal 1, above. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) If there's an imperative for move, I'd support this one as it doesn't look like a territory grab. Basic Proposal 1 looks like some sort of assertion over all FRP games (which I don't think is the intent of this at all), and 1.1 loses the D&D-specific nature of the project. Intothatdarkness 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I do like this idea. This WikiProject is basically just a more narrow version of WikiProject Role-playing games, and it appears that everything that falls under this WikiProject also falls under the Role-playing games WikiProject (D&D video games have their own taskforce). Having a more centralized page for articles would make it easier for collaboration and discussion, while keeping the D&D specific focus for the task force. - SudoGhost 21:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2: Opposed

 * 1) This idea has been brought up before, but I don't remember when or how thoroughly it was discussed. Maybe it's just my personal preference to keep this project organized the way it has been for the past several years, but I do like it this way. If we can keep all the stuff we've got now (like the main Wikiproject page, and everything else specifically created for WP:DND), then you might convince me, but I don't see any compelling reason to make this change. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As part of the MUD Wikiproject->Task Force, it was pretty seamless as far as I was concerned on that transition. The project page hierarchy can stay substantially intact, keep redirects, and just change titles and locations. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

comments
Widening the scope of articles will STILL not address the fact that multiple primary sourcebooks do not satisfy the "independent coverage" clause of the the GNG. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic; notability issues have nothing to do with this proposal. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought by initiating this discussion with "In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures" you were attempting to come up with a solution that would address the complaints of one or two editors about the lack of independent sources; and that by pointing out that none of these proposals would do anything to change the basis and source of those complaints that I WAS on topic. But if you do not actually expect this project realignment to address the root concern of the complaints, then I will let you on your merry way. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Every version of D&D is a separate game

 * One problem that I've seen with scope in the D&D universe is that it is not one game. It is at least five games published by TSR: D&D (in its various incarnations), AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition, D&D 3.0/3.5, and D&D 4.0.  Add to this a number of compatible products by other publishers (e.g. Rolemaster's Arms Law), SRD/d20 products produced independently under license, and "retro-clones" and other systems, and it's clear that discussing "Dungeons & Dragons" as if it were a single entity creates problems for sourcing and clarity.


 * D&D versions are not cross-compatible While material may be generally adapted from one to another and mechanics are similar, core rulebooks have been reprinted for each major revision.
 * D&D has been published by more than one company Both TSR and Wizards have published multiple versions, and multiple companies have published unofficial and/or licensed supplements, game aids, and adventures for each of the versions.
 * Thus, it is clear to me that the best way to consider D&D is that each separate major revision, requiring new core rulebooks and/or requiring conversions to use supplemental material from other major revisions, is a separate fictional work or product for all Wikipedia purposes.

Proposal 2: Support

 * 1) Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Opposed

 * 1) I think that spreads the content too thin; would create a lot of unnecessary overlap and would make it more difficult for readers to find what they were looking for. - SudoGhost 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think it would cause any more confusion, or require any more change than, covering each game in a subheading such as in Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I share SudoGhost's concerns about this one. Or maybe it's just unclear to me. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This renders D&D versions independent of each other, and consequently clarifies that e.g. Wizards only had editorial control of D&D versions 3.0 and up. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) absolutely no - based on the jclemens response above this is an attempt to create artificial "independence" by fiat of the wikiproject. as such, even if the project declared it so, it would have no credence as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that directly contravenes all common sense and the wikipedia project-wide consensus requiring truly independent third party sources to establish notability. --  The Red Pen of Doom  22:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) per Sudoghost. I understand the rationale but overkill I think...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) As a textbook example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS if it is planned to be used in AfDs, as it seems to be the case per Jclemens' clarification. Nitpicking about differences between versions is not going to obscure facts: all products belong to the same intellectual property and each and every book is still a primary source on D&D and thus not independent. TSR effectively became WotC when they were sold, many staff members and full copyrights were transfered to WotC, claiming this equates to independence would be a major violation of WP:N, WP:COI and an attempt to bypass a lot of AfD outcomes. Regardless of use in AfD, I agree with SudoGhost that it would likely be detrimental if each D&D edition had to be covered in a separate article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one ever proposed covering creatures in separate articles. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) *I'd say they're really just evolutions. Much like the rules of baseball have changed over the decades, and distinctions are made between different time periods, e.g. the "dead ball era", it's all still considered the same fundamental game. I do think there is an interesting nugget in here, namely the distinction between the two editorial eras. Not sure what that would imply, however. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider AD&D pre-Unearthed Arcana vs. post-Unearthed Arcana to be "the same fundamental game". To be sure, there are differences, but characters, monsters, and adventures did not need fundamental reworking to interact with the new material.  The same cannot be said of the major revisions--the fact that several "classic" adventures have been reworked for newer versions of the game would seem to support that.  Likewise, while a 1980 Honda Civic and a 2012 Honda Civic are both "Honda Civics" but one would be hard pressed to find any interchangeable parts between them.  At what point would you say we have reached a situation where we have a "Dungeons and Dragons family of games", acknowledging the commonalities and fundamental differences in major revisions? Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about it, the more sympathetic I'm becoming to your position. I've seen conversions between 1st and 2nd edition, which isn't too difficult, but looking at 1st vs 4th, it's clear there's a pretty significant difference.  The former is a modified table top wargame, the latter is a table top take on MMORPGs. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It's evolutionary for the most part, especially the early versions. You might have a point when you hit the heavy d20 stuff, but otherwise it's spreading content too thin. Intothatdarkness 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Extended discussion
So under this proposal would Talk:Beholder be under something like "Project D&D", "Project AD&D", "Project D&D3E"? -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. There is only one Wikiproject, and none of the 1.x series of proposals would splinter it.  This proposal is focused on clarifying that D&D is at least five products, not one.  Subjects can and should still be covered in articles appropriate to length and notability guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still not clear exactly what this proposal is supposed to do, but going back to your premise for starting this proposal ("In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, ") the Wikiproject cannot declare by Fiat that D&D is separate and utterly independent of AD&D; and therefore appearance of a monster in sourcebooks from both editions meets the "independent coverage" of WP:GNG and so the complainers will have nothing to complain about. If your goal is to address the root cause of the complaints, you will need to do something else. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that we can't do anything by fiat. All we can do is point out that separate products are, well, separate products. Ever since the AD&D Monster Manual was published D&D has been multiple products, and that's 35 years gone now. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * you can point all you want, but it will not make farcical claims of independance true. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Rename all "(Dungeons & Dragons)" creature articles to "(Fantasy Role Play)"
This serves as an adjunct to the series of 1.x proposals, to clarify that all creature articles currently tagged with the "(Dungeons & Dragons)" title disambiguator should appropriately include all relevant material from the entire genre of fantasy role playing games, broadly construed. This would include not only D&D-like or D&D-compatible games like Pathfinder, but other fantasy role playing games such as Rolemaster, Palladium FRP, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, and the like. This scope clarification will allow a broadening of coverage, without any corresponding expansion in the number of articles for creatures as represented in the various fantasy role playing games.

Proposal 3: Support

 * 1) As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Opposed

 * 1) Looks too much like a "land grab" of sorts (although I'm sure that's not the intent). There are differences in monsters/creatures between games, and I don't think a "one size fits all" idea will work here. Intothatdarkness 17:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Extended discussion
And again, going back to your premise for starting this proposal ("In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, ") - when the topic of an article is expanded to ("fantasy role play") that shift then throws ALL fantasy role play sourcebooks into the category of non-independent sources for that article and so none of them can be used to meet the "independent coverage" clause of the GNG. It does significantly open up the possibility that SOME truly independent source has covered at least one version of the fantasy critter from one of the game systems so that rather than needing the third party coverage about the fantasy critter to be about "the D&D critter" the coverage could be about the critter in any particular game system or just the critter in fantasy gaming in general.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does precisely the opposite: Each is independent of all incarnations of a creature save one. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont have a clue what you are trying to say. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the topic is "Centaur (Fantasy Role Play)" every D&D, Palladium, Rolemaster, etc. reference to Centaurs in their fantasy role play products is independent of the topic, because e.g. TSR/Wizards, while a player does not control "Fantasy Role Play" any more than Ford Motor Company controls "Automobile". Problem solved! Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I laughed, that was a good one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone needs a course in Independent Sources 101. If the article topic was "automobile" and the only sources available were published by Ford, Toyota and Volkswagen, then the topic of "automobile" would fail WP:GNG. However, for "automobile", (unlike "brownie (D&D)" or "brownie (fantasy RPG)") there have been numerous third party sources completely 'independent from the creators of "automobiles"' who have considered the subject of "automobile" important enough to write about it at considerable length. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But wait! If someone rode in an automobile, that would make them non-independent, too!  After all, if they used a car to get to work, they would have a financial interest in successful transportation, and therefore couldn't possibly be used as a source on automobiles!
 * Yes, that is absurd argument, but one which begs a serious question: is your definition of independence actually workable for encyclopedic coverage? I think the answer is "clearly not." Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is "being D&D" an affiliation to "D&D" ? Clearly yes. So what we say is entirely workable for encyclopedic coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another AfD
People may be interested in a new AfD Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) --  The Red Pen of Doom  22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since AfDs on D&D creatures seem to always degenerate into "us against them" between the usual suspects (myself included), and that there seems to be some kind of reluctance for some contributors to accept AfD outcomes as consensus on sources, I've started Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to have new views on the question.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would benefit you to recruit other people to the discussion who haven't been subject to your poor conduct, textwalling, editwarring, incivility, and other misbehaviour. After all, if they simply drop in with a non-expert opinion on the texts and then leave, they might not notice how bad your conduct actually is. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is only hurting yourself, Jclemens. Please remember to comment on content, not contributors.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking arguments against the contributor with arguments against behavior. You may be a decent chap in real life, but your Wikipedia conduct has left much to be desired, despite my repeated efforts to coach your behavior. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So "XXX is a jerk" is a no no, but "XXX behaves like a jerk" is ok ? I've never been convinced by the nuance (which looks more like an excuse to me). Anyways, as you're an involved party in the on-going dispute (given your tone, we can even call it a conflict), it's not up to you to hand out good and bad points. Especially since I can't see what prompted you to react in such a way here. I hope you won't drop your very nice comments whenever I write something, you know how that would be called. If you really have something to say, do it on my talk page, but again I don't think you're qualified to do that anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, it's my obligation to point out poor conduct by anyone. As a participant, it's my obligation to NOT block you myself for your objectionable behavior. And yes, you're right, that few to none of these various conduct violations have happened on this page... but I never asserted that they did. Indeed, most have happened in various AfD's, noticeboard discussions, and on my talk page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not because you're an admin that everything you say is true or objective, otherwise even involved admins would be allowed to block other involved parties. Nowhere have I read that administrators have to actually follow contributors around to point out to supposed poor conduct in unappropriate venues where, per your own admition, no such conduct can be observed. Now please be reasonable and stop diverting this thread from its purpose, if you have anything to say do it on my talk page, or just don't.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty bad form to be throwing around accusations of "bad behavior" on multiple pages without providing any evidence to support the claims. One would generally expect better behavior from an admin. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, big breath everyone. now let's all have a collective wiki-hug and be collaborative :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
There is a merge discussion going on at Talk:List_of_Dragonlance_deities. The discussion tag was added and then 5 days later an editor began the merging process without discussion. I un-merged Takhisis and added many refs. Please have a look and weigh your opinion in this discussion. After all a discussion implies that people will discuss first. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Erik and BLPs
I just want to go on record thanking User:Paul Erik for all the help he has given our project in the last couple of years on BLP articles. Just recently he has helped build up Don Bingle, and a while back he helped me rescue Flint Dille (friend of Gary Gygax) from deletion. I took a look through our project's bio articles, and found that he has added a source or two to literally dozens of them, and in quite a few cases he added multiple new sources. For just a sampling of his work, I picked out all the article on which he added three or more sources (mostly artists): Denis Beauvais, Clyde Caldwell, Carl Critchlow, Liz Danforth, Jeff Dee, Emily Fiegenschuh, Scott Fischer, Donato Giancola, Daniel Horne, Vince Locke, Todd Lockwood, Ari Marmell, Jeff Miracola, Mark Nelson, Terese Nielsen, Adam Rex, Robh Ruppel, Richard Sardinha, Kev Walker, Eva Widermann, and Robin Wood – hopefully I'm not missing any of his more significant contributions. :)

So, a huge thanks to Paul Erik! BOZ (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, good job and thank you. We don't do enough recognition around here for people who work on BLPs in niche areas, where our stringent (and appropriately so!) sourcing requirements make it tough to cover an off-the-beaten-path hobby like ours. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)