Talk:List of Marvel RPG supplements

Gaming Supplements (table and separate article)

(copied from Talk:Marvel_Super_Heroes_(role-playing_game))

No, we are not going to cut and paste the entire product line into this wiki article, or anywhere else. Keep your commerials off of here. -- 69.109.253.116 07:59, 3 February 2006

I found the product list to be useful information. There's no link to any sellers, and the products have all been out of print for years, so accusing it of being a commercial seems baseless. -- 209.178.134.24 12:37, 3 February 2006

Hi erveybody,

I'm the author of the supplements section of this article.

Though I'm honored in some way that 69.109.253.116 wrongly accuses my well researched/compiled list of gaming supplements as an excerpt from an official source like a database from a publisher or a trader, I definitive disagree with the complete deletion of the supplements section for the following reasons:

• as 209.178.134.24 wrote
  • The list could be useful info for many people (it doesn't seem fair to deny them these info)
  • There are no direkt links to any sellers (I only provided Wikipedia-ISBN-Links)
  • These products are indeed looong out of print and many of them are very hard to find nowadays (even harder when you don't know exactly the title or the ISBN, some traders even deny that certain supplementals were ever published!)
• The shown table only features information. There is neither advertising/praise nor rating of the mentioned products.

I'm a big Marvel fan and I'm gathering information of secondary literature from Marvel (like this list) over years now! And I want to share this information. Therefore the sorrow about sombody recklessly trashing the Supplemental section hits even deeper!

Please, before you trash somebodies work, go to the discussion page first and ask other people about their opinion! If you dislike the mentioning of some facts (for example the Original Price info) go and write about it. We'll probably find a way where everybody can live with. If not, there are other possibilities like a straw poll for example...

Be bold! ...but please also be fair!

(At this place I want to thank Ty for providing the list of supplementals from which I started yeeeears ago!)

Weapon X (de) 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As above, I feel the list should stay; it's a useful resource. There is plenty of precedence for keeping info of this sort (e.g., List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, List of Shadowrun books, List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books). Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article – "List of Marvel Super Heroes supplements" or similar? -- Muchness 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the list to a separate article would make sense, I vote for that. Also, this page could be better categorized so that its not one big blob. I will leave that for someone with a little more knowledge of the subject matter. -- Hetar 05:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me... -- Weapon X (de) 15:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Because of Daedalus969's trashing (07:31, 13 January 2011) of the supplements section table (without mentioning it here before) I moved it to an separate article called List of Marvel RPG supplements as proposed by Muchness. -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Grey text in list

What does the gray text mean? 71.226.144.42 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It means that these supplements were announced or advertised (incl. ISBN) but never saw the day of light. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 16:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Heroic Roleplaying

Do we want it here? And how do we count the PDF-only supplements? Neonchameleon (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any supplements to the list, even if they are PDF-only (like the once for MSHAG which are without ISBN). - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 16:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Marvel RPG supplements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://margaretweis.com/creative-directions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of After Midnight (adventure) into List of Marvel RPG supplements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given the opposition to both a merge and deletion; most of the discussion is discussion about editing in general on the Wiki, with editors sharing frustrations. Klbrain (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Very little here to suggest this warrants a standalone article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not merge - "Merge" is just a nice way of saying that the article should or will be deleted. There will be nothing to merge into the list article. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Weapon X if it's not merged there's more risk of deletion IMHO. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  @BoomboxTestarossa

  I oppose deletion of the article. For the same reason (as stated above) I oppose "merging" because there is nothing to "merge" into the list article. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 19:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that the list article has to be a flat, tabulated list is where you're going wrong. With a bit of work it could be a single excellent, informative page that unites a ton of long-stubby and always-likely-to-be-stubby articles, but whatever. TBH trying to whip anything Marvel-related into any sort of presentable, robust, acceptable form is hugely problematic and deeply tiresome. The weaker articles will have to take their chances in their current state until someone mass-prods them and they get annihilated and turned into exactly what you don't want them to be. I could no longer care less, bluntly =) xx BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BoomboxTestarossa I understand your arguments and I support your idea, but that would then be a totally different article then the mere list article. The list article should stay as it is and then another composite article of all the minor/stub RPG title articles could be made and the list entries can still link to the articles pages which then become redirects to the different chapters of the new composite article. I would support that. (Is TBH connected to Asgardian?)

  - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 20:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Weapon X nicest possible way (especially as it's not your fault), support is irrelevant as I will not be doing such an article. When I tried to begin sorting out the Marvel articles some three months ago I was full of hope and willingness to work both by myself and with others to make them better; since I have given up as it is an impossible job due to the area being a magnet for cretins and gatekeepers. Thus instead of having someone who cares about the medium, respects the work put into articles and tries to preserve as much as possible the RPG supplement articles will likely get this sort of treatment when the cleanup crew works their way around them. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BoomboxTestarossa

  I can fully understand your disappointment and maybe frustration or disillusion about the whole topic. I have seen many many good articles about comics (especially about Marvel) trashed for no real reason. But what I also whitnessed over and over again was one or two guys having a deletion agenda and then getting the others (who wanted to keep the article or at least rescue the content) on their side by proposing a so called "merge" which mostly ended up in trashing either the whole article (with comments like "nothing to merge here") or just saving maybe 5 % of it (maybe just one sentance). That was my experience and disillusion over the past years. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 20:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Weapon X Mine too, which is why I tried to whip them into shape in a more proactive fashion via tagging and the like rather than kicking them to AfD. Sadly, Wikipedia editors who edit Wikipedia seem to be a dying breed. If the RPG supplements were to go to AfD (and it is not something I am suggesting or want to happen, you understand, just a danger when they come on the radar of those with a deletion agenda) some will be kept, some would be 'merged' into a plain redirect with none of the material incorporated and some will get outright deleted (especially as many use paper sources that don't crop up immediately on a Google search), and people actually interested in the subject will have little to no control over that. There was, and still is, an opportunity to take control and avoid that happening. But I like to enjoy editing Wikipedia and feel like I am collaborating with people to make it better, whereas any attempt to work on anything Marvel or DC rapidly turns into tedium. Double-edged sword of popularity I guess, but it makes a huge swathe of comic and associated media articles simply not worth the time it would take to bring them up to standard, and they get left in an awful no-man's land where they could and should be much higher quality but no-one will let them be rewritten. Maybe if there were more hours in the day I'd feel differently, but TBH I'm much happier not spending my time on Wikipedia not engaging with that sort of thing. =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BoomboxTestarossa

  Totally getting what you are saying and pointing out. And I agree with you on most things.

  Thanks for your great efforts and work for Wikipedia!

  Honestly speaking my days of effort for Wikipedia are in the past because of different reasons, one being that single editors can greatly trash a lot of other users content without getting much attention of adminstrators even when they are called out dozens of times. It needs unbelievable efforts to get such users banned becazse they also use a lot of sock pupets. Another is the bias that is used on delicate articles. Truth can not be established because Wikipedia is mostly a sum up of media bias. I switched to concentrate on my mother language Wikipedia, but since the world has gone "crazy" with a lot of special topics, my efforts go into deeper-rooted, much more important problems of whole society which have to be fixed before Wikipedia can be fixed. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 22:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.