Talk:Dragon kill points

Frequently asked questions

Why is this article back?

A couple of reasons:

Some actual papers have come out on the subject in peer reviewed journals.
Some of the previously unacceptable sources have become acceptable as their owners (namely Nick Yee) meet WP:SPS.
WP:RS has been clarified whereby an organization like Gamasutra can be considered a reasonably reliable source.
It never actually should have been deleted in the first place (maybe). This is a possibility, given that past revisions were very much a "how-to" and "pro/con" on specific DKP systems, rather than a summary of the scholarly/RS look at the issues. Problems in article content are hard to overlook in deletion debates.

But didn't the last AfD determine that Castronova whitepaper was just a lark?

Maybe. But that's just their opinion. It doesn't stop the fact that Ted Castronova meets WP:SPS on the subject of virtual economies and that the paper was written for a conference at the University of Chicago. By fun I suspect that Ted means his paper was more accessible and less like traditional conference papers on economics. But that is also just my opinion.

How come this talks more about social effect than actual use of DKP?

Sorry. That's a result of the sources available. If you can find a reliable source that covers that slice of the topic, feel free to flesh the article out.

Dragon kill points has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
May 15, 2007	Articles for deletion	No consensus
June 15, 2007	Articles for deletion	Deleted
March 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
September 11, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

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

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Rewired (demoparty) (0 participants)
Grossology (books) (4 participants)
Studio Yotta (1 participant)
Vicious Engine (3 participants)
Jack Marston (Red Dead) (6 participants)
Joshua Tomar (6 participants)
Juhani (Star Wars) (3 participants)
Starwing Paradox (2 participants)
Pit (Kid Icarus) (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Noteworthy[edit]

This is something that is definitely noteworthy enough for an article, and I'm glad to see a good article being put forward. Hopefully people can allow it to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.50.170 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could restore this article to its former glory, as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saraid/DKP. --Psychochild (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Some of that stuff would need to be trimmed per WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE, but it certainly could be added on. I said as much in the FAQ above. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon kill points/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Please clarify:
"As a result, the raid would only be rewarded DKP if at least one player desired the item dropped by the boss." — Rewarded with or awarded? Or something else?

Clarified. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They cannot be traded or redeemed outside the game world or even the guild itself like the virtual currencies created by the game developers." — Shouldn't this be: "unlike"?

I'll try to rewrite that sentence (s). There are some interesting distinctions between the two "currencies", but it is hard to get too illustrative without engaging in original research. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Because guilds mete out DKP in return for participation in events the functional result is that DKP serve less as currency or material capital and more as what Torill Mortensen refers to as a 'social stabilizer'." — Not really a prose issue, but I've listed it here to avoid creating new lists that make finding my suggestions more difficult. I can't find anything on Wikipedia either on Torill Mortensen or about "social stabilizers", so this needs an explanation, best coupled with a source to avoid introducing OR.

Ok. I'll go grab the paper again to flesh out that section. There is also another paper my library doesn't have access to which explains the cultural/social capital element of things (more generally). This might take a while (a week).

No problem, this is not a time trial, just let me know on my talk page when you find that paper. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded on this somewhat. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, logical quotations are advocated by MOS.
Done. Double check to make sure I didn't miss any. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
If you're going to use shortened footnotes, please list the complete citation below the numbered list as per WP:CITESHORT.
Thanks for that pointer. Guess I should do that for all "my" articles. :) Protonk (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Each footnote which is shortened has the full cite in the lower section. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Quite a good balance between in-game mechanics and effect in the real world
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I suggest moving the image to the upper right corner.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I've listed the suggestions above. When you find time, fix the article according to them or reply here if you don't agree. I'll check back soon. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now, I'm passing it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source questions[edit]

I'm not sure that the reference for Krista-Lee Malone states who this person is nor why she is significant. I would also suggest that the citation used for her does not make any reference to this person nor does it say what it cited. Additionally, I would question whether a user submitted essay on this Daedalus Project site meets the standard of a reliable source? Ngaskill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That's two questions, and I'll try to answer them both.
- First the Daedalus Project. Nick Yee, who oversaw the project and collected the information, is a subject matter expert. We are allowed to use self published material from him on the subject of his expertise.
- Malone is a harder nut to crack. The work hasn't been published yet but has been accepted for publication. I'm not really attempting to use her intrinsic 'authority' per se. I'm just attempting to use the best sources available. When a release date for the paper becomes available, I will update the source with it. I'd prefer to not use it, but there isn't much else in the world of reliable sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, is the the Daedalus Project material referenced even relevant to this entry? The page seems to be various gamers narrative responses about "power" in online gaming world. While I can see the narratives might suggest that possessing virtual items is be a source of power, how does this relate to DKP? Would an virtual object obtained through a DKP system be more prestigious than obtained from a different loot distribution system? Perhaps the implication is that merely having amassed points in a DKP system in and of itself is a source of power within a gaming community.

Finally I suggest that after revisiting this article a month later without further details on the unpublished Malone citations that this material be removed for until such time as it is available for review. Ngaskill (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The daedalus project cites relate to specific sections in the article, where they are footnoted. No attempt is made to argue that the pages cited relate uniquely to DKP. However in order to contextualize the subject, some background is needed. Yee provides that background.
I'm willing to talk about the Malone cite, but I don't agree that it should be removed. If the piece had never been accepted for publication I would agree that it would fail RS. As it stands, I think it is marginal. If you like, you can ask for some feedback on the reliable sources noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the statement "As such, a "Cold Snap" represents a signal to other players that the bearer has defeated a particular high-level monster and therefore mastered the skills needed to do so." verified by anything on http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001300.php?page=6 as cited? Ngaskill (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am willing to accept that the Malone cited material as reliable. I still question the relevance? Maybe this whole discussion might be better served by merging it into an article about MMOs rather than specifically DKP? Ngaskill (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. If we are in agreement as to the reliability of Malone's paper, how can you not see the relevance of the paper to this article?
Well, a portion of the cold snap sentence is cited to malone. Basically the idea goes something like this: Rare, bind on pickup items are signals to other players that you have defeated monster XYZ and are therefore skilled enough (or whatever) to do so. Malone and Yee both note this theme among players (power brings recognition in Yee, the page is cited in Malone). It isn't the only reason people value the items specifically, but it is one reason that players have divulged to researchers. The sentence is there because we have to make sense of why these items are "valuable" to players and why loot systems were generated to hand them out fairly. Protonk (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources explicitly drawing the same conclusion? Using the context of each seems to go against the ideas of WP:SYN. However, that issue not withstanding I still question most of that entire section's relevance in an article about Dragon Kill Points? People probably don't think "wow that guy's cold snap was obtained with 557 DKP!" they think "wow, that guy has a cold snap item!" Ngaskill (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources are web available and you may read them yourself, if you so desire. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DKP and casual players[edit]

I'm disappointed that there is no mention of the controvesies that have occured with the use of this system, and how it is sometimes considered divisive, particularly by casual players. Unfortunately any mention of that may lead to edit wars by those with a vested interest. But I don't feel this article can meet the criteria for npov without a balanced look at the negatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.25.5 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningful controversy is always of encyclopedic interest. The first step there, though, is identifying the reliable sources that we can draw upon for discussion of said controversy. (Forum posts aren't going to cut it.) —chaos5023 (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good comment, but Chaos is basically right. Malone (and to some extent Castronova) talks about DKP and casual players, but there are not a lot of articles which flesh out the issue. Part of the problem is that as the player base in WoW has grown more casual, DKP has become less important--largely as a result of raid size shrinking. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Castronova's Synthetic Worlds at home, but haven't read much of it. Do you think a skim targeted at this issue is likely to be productive? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure. He gave a conference talk about DKP a while back, but I'm not sure how generally he treats DKP as a subject in virtual worlds. My suggestion would be to look through his posts on Terra Nova first. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good idea. Thanks. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is DKP actually tracked? Do the guild leaders just write it down somewhere? Seems extremely easy to abuse without in-game controls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.71.19.121 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]