This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
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
I'm very tempted to just move this page back to its original name, but I'd like to hear from the person who moved it. If there's a logical reason, I'm more than willing to leave it where it is. However, I did read over the Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games page (which is the primary page relating to the Portal:Role-playing games, and I see there that it is "a project to better organize information in articles related to role-playing games") and I just don't see any such stricture.
The only information on that page relating to the use of the singular is in discussing a system. In that context, of course, you would lead by describing it as a game not a games. However, this page refers to a concept as it exists across all role playing games not any one specific game. Thus, the current (renamed) page title comes off as very stilted, and does not accurately reflect the scope of the article. So, what was the specific style guideline to which the editor who moved the page was referring? -Harmil 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and move it back. The article is about Psi in all RPGs, not in one RPG, and most of Category:Role-playing game terms uses the plural. This is my one "revert", I won't continue a revert war without discussion, but I think this was just a well-meaning mistake by the mover. GRuban 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it according to long term goal #3: Consistent naming: rename all Foo (RPG) and Foo (Role-playing game) pages to Foo (role-playing game). But I did not check what the other titles of the category were named after. Sorry for that. I'd like all role-playing game related articles to have the same naming, but myself am unsure if it really would make sense in this case. On the one hand, I think you have a point, interpreting the brackets as "Psionics in role-playing games", on the other hand... I can't really explain, but I feel you got the stronger point anyway. So lets leave it just like that, I think you are right on this one. -- Genesis 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your follow-up. BTW: if any of you have experience with psionics in role-playing games that are not listed, feel free to add them. -Harmil 13:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the confusion now, and I think I understand how to clarify WP:RPG#Long-term goalsGRuban 14:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waking up an old argument here, but because "psionics" is a neologism, per WP:NEO, if the intention is to discuss the psychic powers in RPGs, then this article should be retitled to a phrase, such as Psychic abilities in role playing games.
If instead, the desire is to discuss the usage of the term "psionics" within RPGs, then this article should be rewritten to only discuss games that explicitly use the term "psionics" to refer to the powers within that universe. If that is the action taken, then the resultant content could very probably be merged back into the main Psionics article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
