Talk:Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells

This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Classes[edit]

Added prestige classes. This is my first real major edit on wikipedia, so tell me if i did something wrong. Thanks, FernoKlump (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the rest of chapters FernoKlump (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is disputed[edit]

Note to User:HooperBandP: Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. Please restore the notability cleanup template, which was placed there to address the problem that this article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying sound rude, knowing what is going on between you and the rest of the RPG editor community here I'm not going to rely soley on your opinion. What do you in particular find not notable about this? It has sources that are third party, and it is well used. It is not the only sourcebook on wikipedia (if it were, then maybe I would understand, or maybe making one page that is a list of additional source books and deleting all pages, but until that is undertaken, I disagree). Hooper (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is not notable. You say that "It has sources that are third party", but I don't see any sources at all. Show me the sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay, you're right. For some reason I could of swore this page had sources. I'll get to that, but in any case, the PROPER PROCEDURE is to add the sources tag that is on the page now. Then you should assume good faith and if nothing has changed over a long period of time, then you can assume that no sources exist, then question the notability, as none of these articles constitute speedy delete. I understand you have a beef from reading your stuff, but follow procedure and you'll either find proper sourcings or find things deleted for notability reasons. No reason to break the chain of procedure to push your own pov. I'll fix this page. I'll also watch your contributions for References tags and see what I can do to help those articles if that will help. Hooper (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete this page, particularly if you think there are sources that could be added to it. However, I will add the Importance cleanup template in the meantime.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that makes perfect sense. In two seconds I found two refs, and when at home and able to spend more time I can do it with ease. Now, another thing to bring up other than notability is legality - I'm not sure if this informative of a page is all Open Source information. But then again pages on novels can give a general overview of the plot so it may be ok. Hooper (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]