Talk:Open gaming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 01 (2005-01-16 to 2005-10-20) :
• Archive 02 :

---

Contents 1 Ground rules 2 Dominion Rules 3 Editing: Organization 4 Introductory section

[edit] Ground rules

Anyone who adds anything should please cite a credible source, which should not consist of a blog, a post to a discussion forum or Usenet, and if it's a personal website, it should only be used as a source if the edit is about the website's owner. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anything that is deleted should be brought to talk for discussion. If everyone sticks to the policies, there should be no need to re-protect it, but I will if the reverting starts again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion Rules

Imho, Dominion Rules 2.0 use an open game license not just an open supplement license. I also added it to the Open game list. 81.209.224.202 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing: Organization

I would like to suggest that we re-organize this article slightly. The article currently has this organizations, which is a bit meandering:

   1 Overview
   2 Open Gaming Licenses
       2.1 Open Supplement Licenses
   3 Open Games
   4 History
       4.1 Open Gaming License
           4.1.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       4.2 Other licenses
           4.2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
           4.2.2 October Open Gaming License
   5 References

I think the subject (and the article's current content) lends itself to being organized like so:

   1 Overview
   2 History
       2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
       2.2 Open Gaming License
           2.2.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       2.3 Reactions to the OGL
           2.3.1 October Open Gaming License
   5 References
       5.1 Open gaming licenses
       5.2 Open games
       5.3 External links

What do folks think of that? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take silence as approval, I guess. I'll work on the reorganization tomorrow. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-10-27 T 06:41:30 Z

I've reorganized the article along the lines of my suggestion above. While I was at it, I added a few more examples and external links, and rewrote a few sections for clarity. You know, I think this is a damned good article now. I'm not sure what else I would want to change. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though. Thoughts, anyone? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:03:08 Z

[edit] Introductory section

EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. If there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. But since Wikipedia policy apparently contradicts proper technical writing practice, and since "Bluemoose" seems intent on enforing this misguided policy, I have revised the introduction. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z

Wow, take a look at every other article in Wikipedia, take a look at the guidlines. As I always say to people like you; do you honestly think everybody else is wrong and you right? or do you think it is possible that maybe you are wrong? Martin 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did take a look at the guidelines. Up to a year ago, they specifically stated that the first section should have a header named "Overview". And yes, most people are wrong. Not everyone, but most people. That's one of the reasons why editng a factual document (like an encyclopedia) by "consensus" is doomed to failure. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-02-3 T 21:15 Z