From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Non Shadowrunner Player Characters[edit]

Shadowrun's basic system does make it possible to create almost any kind of character you'd like in the Sixth World, but if you're looking to play characters that aren't Shadowrunners, you really have to work to get out from under the Shadowrun paradigm. As an example of what I mean, I tried to GM a game where the player characters were all members of a Sioux tribe that were under pressure from the Tribal council to leave thier land, and were effectively being forced out. It didn't work out as well as I would have liked simply because we all, players and I both, had a hard time getting out of the "we're all shadowrunners" mind-set. Let's face it, the character generation system definately leads into making that type of character. A good first step out of that setting would be to create an entirely new Skills set, one that expresses the type of characters you'd like in your game. It helped tremendously with my game. ~Tim 15:38, 18 January 2006

Shadowrun used to encourage charater types other than the now-prevalent criminals and mercenaries - Rockers, Detectives, etc [admittedly, inspired by CP 2020 and others]. Shadowrun used to be a world to explore and full of different peoples, but has degenerated to a game where anything other than crims'n'mercs are discouraged. 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all these characters have been shadowrunners as well who just happened to come from different backgrounds or have another job on the side. The really different types were usually introduce in the various Companion Sourcebooks (which is still to come for SR4). But who keeps you from creating a detective now? It is still completely possible within the rules, and to be honest I've always thought the idea of rockers a bit ridiculous (at least the more famous ones can't afford to run the shadows). 10:12, 22 August 2007

As mentioned by the original commenter, the rules don't really cater for anything beyond the crims'n'mercs type game. It used to have Tribal characters as viable archetypes [not least because AmerIndian culture was a very big part of SR].

To say that characters beyond mercs'n'crims are possible within the rules as long as you're willing and able to write such rules from scratch and provide information and background to bring them to anything like the level of the crims'n'mercs is 1) agreeing there's a problem, as those options, skills and background should be available 2) is like saying any word is the same as another - since using the alphabet, you can create any word you like.

Also, considering that cyberpunk is a genre and encompasses all sorts of characters and archetypes and plots [archetypes: mercenaries, soldiers, policemen, doctors, scientists, hackers, athletes, drivers, pilots, children, mutants, robots, jounalists, poets, superheroes, martial artists, tribals, pirates, corporates - plots: love, honour, vengence, revenge, theft, murder, investigation, gathering knowledge, unearthing secrets, stealth] SR is redefining cyberpunk to mean gun/spell/martial arts/metalware toting mercs'n'crims.

Every other cyberpunk rpg available offers more varied characters and archetypes than SR does.

Also, Bugglegum Crisis is generally seen as a template or archetypal cyberpunk manga and has someone mixing her music career with Boomer hunting and Hardsuit wearing, a junior police officer mixing her job with hacking and Hardsuit wearing, a corporate/shop owner with PR work and Hardsuit wearing - definitely more than just mercs'n'crims. 11:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mixing two different aspects here: Archetypes and rules.
I completely agree that the rules cater almost exclusively to shadowrunner characters. Additional rules for playing reporters, DocWagon employees, policemen, gangers, etc. have existed for both SR2 and SR3 (in the corresponding companion books) and will probably be introduced in the SR4 companion. So if you want to center your game around these concepts, then yes, you either need to wait for these rules or make them up (or adapt older versions).
If on the other side you want to play a shadowrunner with a different background, then the existing rules should be fine. Everyone can build shadowrunner characters, who are / were also working as rockers, detectives, etc. However, I strongly disagree if you say that just having Tribal character (or similar) archetypes in the main book is sufficient for playing alternative campaigns and that not having them there makes a difference concerning the game style that is encouraged/discouraged. 16:08, 29 August 2007
I've never had any trouble playing non-Shadowrunners with SR2 or SR3 rules. The rules were sufficiently flexible to handle any profession with some level of talent; it wasn't particularly good at handling children since the mechanics grew rather flaky when there were only a couple of dice being used. And although there aren't specific rules for filing legal briefs, extinguishing fires, and the like, a competent GM can handle all of that without undue difficulty. I am much less confident that SR4 will be as flexible, since the new WoD-style system still breaks just as badly for small numbers of dice, but no longer scales up well either. I wouldn't want to try to play an olympic athlete with SR4. Still, if you stay within the range where the rules work best, there's no reason you can't be doing crime scene investigations instead of sneaking through a corp. facility. Again, that's mostly up to the GM. 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Contacts and Adventures is a small source book released for SR4 that includes a handy SR3 to SR4 conversion. I have used this on a number of occasions to bring a character into SR4, with the GM's approval, from SR3. This includes former NPCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dzoo-noo-qua[edit]

I disagree with this proposed merger. If you merge that in then you need to have any future Shadowrun specific items in this article and it will get too large. The page is already getting large and some bits need splitting off. Maybe move it into a Races of Shadowrun article with the rest of the race information off the main page, but don't put it into the main article. Ben W Bell 08:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could be merged into the HMHVV article (which covers Shadowrun vampirism, of which the Dzoo is a variant). I'm going to propose that link in the afor mentioned article. Donovan Ravenhull 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Below is the content from the Seretech article. I made it into a redirect here because it does not appear to need its own article. I suggest incorporating it into this article or one of its sub articles, if it has any. -- Kjkolb 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seretech is a fictional medical company in the roleplaying game Shadowrun. It plays an important role in the overaching story of the game world, and helps to usher in the era of super powerful "Megacorps." In the future world the Megacorps partially replace government across the world, totally in some areas.
I, for one, do not think it is notable enough for it's own article. I'm an advid Shadowrun fan who has contributed to these pages, but I think this one is a bit much. Keep it as a footnote to the Shadowrun Timeline, which is how it is usually limited to in the source material. Donovan Ravenhull 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyberpunk RPGs[edit]

The following sentence is in the article:

Magic is the element that separates Shadowrun from other cyberpunk roleplaying games.

First of all, I didn't know that there were other cyberpunk roleplaying games. If so, then some of this text should link to a category of such games, or if there are very few, link to individual games. If you are including any of the universal RPGs in the cyberpunk category, then those will also support magic. This is just a request for a repair. Val42 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a small bracketed section to list a few others. I've also created a new Cyberpunk role-playing games category. Ben W Bell talk 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I realize how important the 4th Edition notes are, because it's so different from previous editions, so would it also be helpful to include changes in the other editions in their own sections? (2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, or an Edition History like the D&D article) I don't know all the changes between 2nd and 3rd editions. -- 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I could compare 2nd and 3rd editions, but aside from a change to the initiative system and some moderately important changes to the magic system, the games differ in really minor details. Even the initiative and magic changes are too specific to fit into the general discussion on the page. The change from 1st edition was a bit larger, but I don't have the first edition, so I can't help with that comparison. Anyway, if someone is an expert with all three, a few words about earlier changes would be great, but by far the largest changes (e.g. using totally different mechanics) happened between 3rd and 4th ed..
Ichoran 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the part about Otaku and Technomancers. Otaku could get cyber, they just ran the Matrix without the Cyberdeck that deckers did. Also added notes about Resonance and how the Matrix is blending more with their magic system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Edition picture[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to upload this larger cover image? [1] I don't know if it's acceptable under Wikipedia's copyright policy (or what low-resolution means), but there's already a large version of the 3rd edition cover. -- 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigel D. Findley entry request[edit]

guys, I have a request. My English is too poor and wiki skills to lame, but Findley did very much for Shadowrun. If you don't know - he's dead (died in 2004 iirc). Could anybody be so kind and made an entry about him? TIA --mattness 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added what I could but my wiki skills are fresh and lame. Can anyone help me out? throw you sig on it if you want :)--Lostfang 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seventh World[edit]

The Seventh World is due to begin on April 4, 7137 AD. Has anybody done any stories or scenarios set at or near this date? Would anybody have any interest in such scenarios? The Seventh World would end in about the year 12,263 AD. Is there any interest in scenarios set in that year? I'm not volunteering, I'm just wondering. Thanks.
:)--NotWillDecker 17:01 18 August 2006

dont think so wouldent it be magic free anyway (little boring).Ansolin 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for any broken etiquette as I am a new editor, but this seems unrelated to the Shadowrun page in general, and perhaps better suited to a forum dedicated to discussing playing the game.Lotus Watcher (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Shadowrun Duels[edit]

Does anyone have an info on this game by the makers of Heroclix? I understand it was similar to other clix games but used action figure sized figures rather than 30 mm ministure size. It would great to see a little on this added to the article. - Waza 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a start at Shadowrun Duels. —MJBurrageTALK • 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Hume and Tom Dowd[edit]

It's funny, unless it's a joke. I just killed the links to Paul Hume and Tom Dowd in the infobox, because apparently, those links led to music personlities, not RPG designers. Now, I wonder if both homonyms having bios as noteworthy figures in the world of music, one as a journalist and scholar, the other as an engineer and producer is a coincidence, of if somebody made a bad joke or what. If anybody who knows enough about the Shadowrun authors to make a bio, or add the RPG related stuff to the article of the musicians if in fact it was really them, that would be appreciated. My own knowledge on the matter being quite insufficient. --Svartalf 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a coincidence. Paul Hume and Tom Dowd are in the family of people responsible for making Shadowrun what it is now. I assume that someone linked to those pages without looking. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about them to create decent bio pages. EvilCouch 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


The MMORPG project Shadowrun-Online is not listed in the article because of a few reasons:

  • There is no publisher, which puts its release in question.
  • It has not been approved by Wizkids or Microsoft, which puts the possibility of them getting sued into oblivion into the mix
  • The development team that's making it "SmartFatGuys Studios" returns no hits on Google leading me to believe that they've never made a commercial game before.
  • Further digging into it find the following statement "Disclaimer: The intent of this project is solely to create a game concept proposal for submission to Microsoft Game Studios" Which means that this is not even a game in the production process.

Please do not re-add the site in the links section until there is any light at the end of the tunnel. As much as I would love to see and play a Shadowrun MMO, Shadowrun-Online is not a game or even a game in development and doesn't merit being listed in the Wikipedia. EvilCouch 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia should inform, right? If somebody wants to create Shadowrun-Online page in wikipedia - why not? But, IMHO, it should be informative (just info about this project: what they plan to do, what they achieve, etc.). The only problem is maintain NPOV (it can be easy resolve, by adding information, and controversy, which EvilCouch pointed [out]). –mattness 23:00, 5 January 2007
Well, the Shadowrun Online Project has been shut down by Microsoft because they were not authorized to develop the game. I've added a link to Shadowrun Awakened because this Open Source Project has Microsoft's Approval. CrisLander 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Shadowrun: Awakened removed. Any notes as to why?

I removed the link as it is a non-notable production that may not see light of day and is not approved or endorsed by Microsoft as clearly stated on their main page. Ben W Bell talk 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But it is approved by Microsoft. you can clearly see it in the website's FAQ. It says: "As of May 2007, we have a non-commercial agreement with Microsoft allowing us to make a free Shadowrun MMO." You can also see a transcript of the actual e-mail from FASA Interactive here. CrisLander 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet the front page of the entire project very clearly states. "WizKids LLC and Microsoft Corp. do not endorse, and are not affiliated with this project in any official capacity whatsoever." In addition it doesn't seem notable as, like most of these projects approved or not, it stands a very low chance of anything actually coming of it. Ben W Bell talk 17:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Per their Sourceforge account, they're not out of the planning stages. While I'd like to see a Shadowrun MMO as much as the next guy, this project isn't even an infant or an embyro at the moment. It's a spermatoza or an unfertilized egg. EvilCouch 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
But the point is, regardless of how far into development, or how probable it is that the game is developed, the fact, right now, is that it is approved by Microsoft and it is in development. If the project is abandoned or shut down, then I'm all for removing the link, but until then, it should remain there. CrisLander 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A project like this that is unlikely to come to fruition (though it may indeed) isn't eligible. Also the link adds nothing encycloapedic to the article, it's just a link to a potential game that hasn't been released and as such adds nothing under WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a collection of links related to topics, it's an encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That is true, so the summary is anything that is not real of fact; that hasn't been proved to work. Is not allowed on wikipedia? If so why is timetravel on wikipedia? As mattness pointed out, wikipendia is to inform. Not for those who don't think something to happen to pass judgement. Hence any Shadowrun material should be included. Such as the SRO and SRA material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2007(PDT)
No, because those projects are, at the moment, entirely superfluous. I could say that I'm starting a Shadowrun video game and create a project page on Sourceforge, too. Does that mean that my project deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia? No. And until either of those projects have anything substantial, they don't either. A couple of fairly primitive models and concept art is not a project that merits mention in an encyclopedia. I don't know how versed you are in the hobbyist game development scene you are, but there are thousands of total conversion mods and games that are announced every year. I would say that of those, roughly 90% produce absolutely nothing playable. There is no indication at this point that SRA is in that 10% at this point and every indication at this point that SRO is in the 90%. EvilCouch 05:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In both cases Shadowrun Online and Shadowrun Awakened, the projects are just not notable enough to be included. I realize that the WP guideline is generally meant for whether an article is notable, but it is a good guideline for this issue as well. If any of these independent projects were covered in reliable sources, then it would be appropriate to include them as specific links. As it is, a line in the computer game section mentioning that there are fan-based independent projects to develop a MMORPG would be fine, but no one of them is notable enough to link to. For the record I would love for one of them to succeed, but that is a different concern than what goes in an encyclopedia article. —MJBurrageTALK • 09:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Shadowrun Online should never be mentioned again as Microsoft went in and yanked the plug from them. Professionals trying to develop a game for sale using someone elses IP! It was inevitable that it would happen, but it doesn't deserve mention in a encyclopaedia article. Shadowrun Awakened has no more status that a fan made mod to any game, unless it's released and is very successful then it doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopaedic entry. Ben W Bell talk 10:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Dudes, all that "I'm the Wiki editor, I know better than you" has really gone to your heads. Obviously Shadowrun Online should not be mentioned because Microsoft pulled the plug on it, but what about Shadowrun Awakened? One of you says "I could say that I'm starting a Shadowrun video game and create a project page on Sourceforge, too. Does that mean that my project deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia?" Not the same situation, because you don't have permission from Microsoft. Another of you says "unless it's released and is very successful then it doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopaedic entry." What, so if the game sucks then it doesn't deserve to be mentioned? Maybe we should remove entries for Gigli, I mean, that movie wasn't very successful either. What about "From Justin to Kelly"? That movie really bombed. Should it be deleted too, oh so wise wikipedia editors? Because according to what you just said, yes, it should. What about 2020, taking one random entry? "Schapelle Corby to be released from prison for drug trafficking in Indonesia". "February 20, 2020 (the 5th Day of the Week) at Time: 20:20:20, the date will read 2020-02-20 20:20:20." Gosh, I mean, these are really important things! Never mind that they haven't happened yet, they really deserve to be in a wiki entry!
I could point you to several entries of unreleased projects. There are entries for unreleased movies, TV shows, comics, books, and yes, video games. I could point you to "Mushroom Men", another game that isn't even out of the concept art stage, yet it has a wiki entry. Maybe we should go and delete it, huh? I mean, it hasn't been released, and it could very well suck. What's the difference? "Mushroom Men" will be distributed by the Gamecock Media Group, therefore it's worthwhile? Well, Shadowrun Awakened has authorization from Microsoft to work on the project, but according to you, it is not worthy of an entry.
Get real. There may be wikipedia guidelines, but they are rarely enforced. There are thousands of entries that should be deleted if one were to stick to your couple points here. Not to mention, this isn't even about an entry, it's about a link in the "Unofficial Sites". 08:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Simple question. Does the external link add any encyclopaedic content that would serve to enhance the article on the Shadowrun Role-playing Game? Simple answer, no. It simply doesn't comply with the WP:EL policies. While Awakened may be authorised by Microsoft at this stage there is no evidence that it is anything more than a fan game being developed by fans for fun, with no evidence to provide strong support that it is in anyway notable or evidence that it will actually be released as most fan produced mod type material never gets released. Ben W Bell talk 10:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So what criteria are you willing to accept before this project meets your approval? Code base? (done) Artwork? (done) Content? (done) Measureable progress? (done). Please, enlighten us. A project, in work and with approval from the license holder in a very neglected genre is severely encyclopedic. Were you familiar with the game system, this would be self evident.Nobuddy 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing, man, your project is not yet encyclopedic. You're not the first game project I've seen to get permission from a game's license holder. 99% of all of the game/mod projects I see die without ever producing anything playable. As Mr. Bell pointed out, to get linked, it should enhance the understanding of Shadowrun or be fairly notable on its own merit. #1 is unlikely to happen because of the nature of the project. #2 could happen, but you're pre-alpha, so we're going to hold off here. Convince people that you're not just another indy game/mod team that never finishes their project and you'll have all the support you need. EvilCouch 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


When Shadowrun was written in the late 1980's, FASA named their gun company Ares. In real life Ares is a gun company, co-founded—and still run at the time—by the inventor of the M-16 and one of the most famous gun-designers in the world. This is an obvious homage, and my link was only there to inform other Shadowrun fans of this piece of trivia. Even if you do not believe it is a deliberate homage, it is still an interesting coincidence worth pointing out. Hence the link I put in the article. —MJBurrageTALK • 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the origin of the name probably goes directly to Greek mythology rather than Stoner's company, but I could see providing an aside and linking the article. However, linking Ares Industries directly to Ares Incorporated is completely wrong as they're not the same company. EvilCouch 06:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the Shadowrun corporations are based on real life companies. Federated-Boeing obviously, Saeder Krupp is based off the core of BMW and there are others so it is quite possibly they did base it off the real life Area. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i think Krupp Heavy Industries are based off ThyssenKrupp (Formerly Krupp), which in the shadowrun timeline have bought BMW. Nichlas


I'm looking for a quote I saw once pertaining to Shadowrunning. I don't recall who said it or the exact wording, but it was to the effect that as your run was ending, someone else's was just starting, and you might be the target. Can anyone clarify this a bit? Grendelthorns 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote in question is attributed to "Kirk Hoff, street mage" on page 180 in SR2 and goes like this "Never relax. Your run might be over, but someone, somewhere, is just starting his, and the target could be you." It may appear in other editions or source books, but I knew about where it was in SR2 and checked it in my book. EvilCouch 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Shadowrun writers and illustrators[edit]

In see also section I saw link to Echo Chernik. Maybe it's worth to make full listy of people which contributed in Shadowrun developement?


The list would be freakishly long. You'd have to add Elmore for cover art on the original books, Steve Kenson for his ubiquitous contribution to the magic system, ad infinatum. Also, there are many places on the web where people keep lists of this kind of information going already. At the most, link to one of those external sites.
- Martin Gotthard August-08

"Sales were positive"[edit]

Interpreted strictly, a product with "positive sales" has sold at least one copy. So saying "sales are positive" can work as a wry geekily-humorous way of saying that you can't say anything better about sales. But mostly, it's a marketing term that means absolutely nothing while trying to engender positive feelings about a product. Whether humorous or marketing-speak, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, so I have removed it.

However, sales numbers are quite relevant. Traditionally, it's been almost impossible to get numbers on quantities sold, placed in the context of the market, for RPGs. If anyone can find a source for that kind of information (i.e. something that could be referenced), it would be nice to have it in the article. Things like sizes of print runs could also be useful. Does anyone have any leads? Ichoran 13:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the source, but I clearly remember reading an interview with one of the current writers, in which he revealed that the sales of fourth edition have been very good, and that all of the delays were related to FanPro USA not having any dedicated production staff. The writers were having to do both jobs. —MJBurrageTALK • 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The out-of-print problems and the pre-out-of-print sales rate may not have been related--it is unfortunate that the writers were having to do too much production work. However what do "very good" sales mean? Good compared to what? Sales almost always go up when a new edition is released. Did the interview give any solid details, e.g. were the sales better than for SR3 (either in absolute terms or relative to the size of the RPG market)? Ichoran 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The article did not give sales numbers. From the context, I took it to mean above expectations and profitable (no small feat in the RPG business). Analogies could be made to West End Games, where Star Wars (d6) was very successful, but not enough to compensate for mismanagement of other operations under the same ownership as WEG, which led to WEG losing the Star Wars license. —MJBurrage(TC) 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign languages[edit]

French SR
I'm not sure about how many translated sourcebooks there are since some of them kept the original title. Maybe somebody knowing SR France better than I do, could check the number.
German SR
some of the German sourcebooks are compilations of original material. E.g. the "Nordamerika-Quellenbuch" (North america sourcebook)contains material from NAN I & II an the Neo-anarchists guide to NA. I'm not sure if these informations are relevant though.

- deus_sociologicus 13:55, 28 Oct 2007

Figurines - Ral Partha & Grenadier[edit]

I don't see Ral Partha figurines in this box (they were made for paper RPG, but produced by other company than FASA). I couldn't find info about Grenadier series (it was made by RalPartha?) - maybe SR fans could explain it on wikipedia? Thanks in advance.

mattness —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Novel game features (Primarily Advancing Timeline)[edit]

I would like to see a novel /significant game features section in this article. The features that make shadowrun stand out from the competition. When I first started playing SR way back when 1st ed came out, what really captured my imagination was the fusion of magic and cyberpunk, and also significantly the advancing timeline concept.

Initially at first, this was fairly formally a 1 year-per-year concept, keeping SR 61 always years in the future. (FASA / FanPro later departed from this and jumped forward several time increments). Significantly, it allowed for the publisher to include game world plot development within their rules supplements as an effective hook for sales growth and repeat business. I remember anxiously awaiting the next supplement to see what was changing, and what the fallout was from previous game world developments. The quality of creativity was also very high.

While I obviously haven't played every game in the world, this stands out to me as a fairly novel and unique feature. In my opinion it's worth including as a standout feature of the game, along with other ones (eg the relatively flat cap of character skills, compared to the exponential style of D&D)

PS - The Earthdawn / Shadowrun crossover was acknowledged but never officially sanctioned. They had two separate marketable product lines that they didn't want to cross-contaminate. In essence: Guidance from developers in response to questions was that Earthdawn was the deep backstory and we were allowed to use it for formation of concepts, but that no Wormskull / other horror was ever going to pop from Aztechnology in an official supplement (Damnit!). This may have been retconned out with the sale of the Earthdawn product line to another developer.

-Martin Gotthard (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, licensed novels (part of the game's canon) made the Earthdawn/Shadowrun connection (as connected Fourth/Sixth Worlds) explicit. The current publishers maintain such a connection as part of the background of both games, although at a level that is generally unimportant to the play of either. The current publishers of Earthdawn also plan to release Equinox a game set in the Eighth World and hence the future of both. —MJBurrage(TC) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In-world perspective[edit]

One editor recently commented that much of the article takes place with in-game POV. But, when one is describing, at length, a fictional game, to do otherwise seems hideously awkward to me. I assume that the fiction guidelines are there so that it is clear that fictional material is fictional, and to maintain constant style. However, unlike in many fictional works, there is a clear "now" and "past" in the Shadowrun game, so I think that using present tense throughout is confusing. (It is, of course, important that it be clear that the content is all regarding a fictional game.) I invite alternate points of view! Ichoran (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro edit is good, but further work is needed in-article. Articles about games are not meant to be based around a reiteration of the game background; all material should be presented from a real-world perspective, and the focus should be on how the game has impacted society - its influences, innovations, and references by others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


S-Run link[edit]

Okay this link has been added and removed many many times over the history of this article. Most recently it has been added by the person who runs said community and has been removed (mainly by myself) as being spamming promotion for their own site. Now they have mentioned the following on their talk page.

Ben, you obviously did not look into what the #S-Run Community is. The channel #s-run on undernet was formed over 10 years ago as a branch-off of the Dumpshock IRC community over creative differences between administrators. Since I inherited channel admin duties 6 years ago, we have become the largest and most active IRC-based Shadowrun communtiy in the entire world. We run Shadowrun games at least 4 nights out of the week, and have GM's hailing from around the globe. Not even Dumpshock has the amount of IRC traffic and Shadowrun game-playing activity that we pull on a nightly basis.

Also, as far as encyclopedic content goes, the 'Shadowrun Datafile' contains adventures, mods, alternate rulesets, shadowrun-related programs, information on movies and music based-on or related to Shadowrun, and plenty more. The community has also been the only one to subtitle and release german-language Shadowrun fan films (winners of the official contest, no less) to the english-speaking public.

We may not have the massive amount of content available on some other sites, but our focus is also on getting more and more people to PLAY the game -- instead of just discussing it in forums. As illustrated, our contributions to the Shadowrun fanbase are nothing to scoff at, and I believe we have every right to be included on the wikipedia external links page. My posting the link is not for promotion, but to inform hungry players worldwide that an extremely-active Shadowrun gaming community is available to them 24/7.

Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back from you soon.

J. Daigle (SuperFly), April 17, 2007, 03:43am CST

So the question is, should this site be one of the allowed links? Community? Ben W Bell talk 09:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is the link presented as some kind of advertisement for the s-run gaming group or anything of the sort. The website features regularly updated game logs, points out flavour material and supplies some game aids to anyone who wants them.
Dumpshock is pretty much a sci-tech news blog with the forum hosted there being the only real source of Shadowrun information beyond the plethora of 2nd edition sites that are no longer maintained. Whereas s-run provides editionless or 3rd and 4th edition resources which is something sorely lacking from the internet in the way of NERPS (or whatever your preferred phrase is). It is my opinion that the site in fact does not present an advertisement but instead does a good job of keeping track of Shadowrun related materials that are just not found elsewhere at this time. SwordRaven 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like useful information to me. If it is relevant to a significant number of people who are interested in Shadowrun--and it sounds like it is--then it should be in. Community sites like this are essential for gamers who live in areas where few others want to play, and given the current state of RPG sales in general and SR specifically, that's probably a majority of SR gamers. Ichoran 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shadowrun Proboards (removed link)[edit]

A few years back I placed a link for The Shadowrun Proboards however today I noticed it had been removed. It's a play by post site and contains basic info for Chargen and active discussions.

Why was it removed? Note, I am not the sites owner.

CrimsonD (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of #S-Run Community Link[edit]

As this debate happened years ago, I do not have access to that account. The #S-Run Community link has just as much value to the online Shadowrun community as Dumpshock does, because it has been the place to find real-time text-based Shadowrun gaming as opposed to the "Play By Post" option.

I will not go into too much detail over the removal of the link from the Shadowrun page; however, you should consult earlier entries in the Discussions page ((namely S-Run link) of this wiki as it has been addressed in the past by an administrator of wikipedia. The verdict of that dispute was that the #S-Run Community site belongs there just as much as, say, Dumpshock. The link is not an advertisement for a site, just as the Dumpshock link is not an advertisement -- but a valuable resource for online roleplayers.

The #S-Run Gaming Community is a long-standing Shadowrun hub for gamers who *cannot find groups in real life* to play the game online, live, via IRC -- and a valuable resource for over a decade now (going on year 13 this October). The CHANNEL alone sees 1/3 to 1/4th the traffic of ENTIRE IRC NETWORKS devoted to *every RPG* -- and its focus is on Shadowrun alone. As the issue of the #S-Run link has been addressed in the past (and only removed again because hosting was lost for a time), I will continue to post the link until further notice.

Thank you for your concern and vigilance in these matters, but I believe I am (and have been confirmed to be) fully within the wikipedia policy rights to display it.

-The SuperFly (Owner & Administrator of #S-Run) Solorunner (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have an obvious conflict of interest and shouldn't be adding the link under any circumstances. (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Meaning what, exactly? If you're going to make such limited statements anonymously -- don't -- please supply arguments. logic, and reasoning to along with them. Thanks.
Solorunner (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, which part of "conflict of interest" do you need explained? Try reading the WP guidelines about it. (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Meaning what, exactly?
Solorunner (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors are not supposed to add material about themselves or their own projects to Wikipeida, as there is an obvious conflict of interest between their role as creator/owner/etc. of the site/project in question, and their role as an editor here.
As for Dumpshock, it is unique as far as I am aware in that it has been listed as a valuable resource in the game books themselves. —MJBurrage(TC) 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If by conflict of interest you mean the only "appropriate" EXTERNAL LINK for Shadowrun being Dumpshock -- which is owned and operated by Adam Jury, one of the Line Developers? THAT is a conflict of interest, and turns this wikipedia entry into one big in-house advertisement. You should consult a dictionary or an ethics book about it. It is RIDICULOUS to not include any other links than Dumpshock, period.
OF course it's in the books, because one of the writers OWNS IT.
By your own accounts, self-promotion by the editors is not allowed. I am merely a representative of a community-based IRC Gaming Channel and Homepage, which is maintained by multiple parties. The #S-Run Community link -- as well as NUMEROUS other fan-sites and resources -- has just-as-much if not MORE right to posted on the wiki than a lone link to a mega-resource run by the developers (Dumpshock). I urge anyone reading this to speak out on this issue, because it is egregiously unethical!
Solorunner (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Since when did anyone make any claims that Adam Jury, or anyone else involved in the running of the community, added the dumpshock links to Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Solorunner. Not just for S-run but for the Proboards as well. Dumpshock is only one aspect of Shadowrun's existence on the web. Players need to find other players and not everyone has the same tastes in websites. Some people may like Dumpshock, others may like s-run and some might even enjoy the Proboards more. Diversity is the key to this games survival, both psychical and digital. Your Dumpshock only polarity points to a conflict of interest of your own. It's not like we're trying to get people to come to the site's so we can get hit counts and make money off them. We're a non-profit viable community, any ads are for the maintenance of the machines the site's are being hosted on.
CrimsonD (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The overlap between Shadowrun's editors & authors and the people behind Dumpshock is what makes it a notable site. That does not mean that no other site can be notable, but a reliable citation as to said site's notability would be required.
If there are articles on playing Shadowrun online—published either by the Shadowrun publisher or by a reliable source—than they could be cited in the creation of a section about online play in the article. If said articles mentioned a particular site for such online play, then it would be reasonable to to add such a site to the external links. —MJBurrage(TC) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to give me opinion on the matter... I used to always be a purist in Fantasy. I only played D&D, and shied away from any form of Scifi except for Star Wars (lol). But when I stumbled across the #s-run site and sites like dumpshock and they peaked my interest in the game. #s-run captivated me completely, they had some hosting problems and are currently rebuilding but they had many resources like fan movies, links to the games (it turns out I ACTUALLY played the snes game back in the day) books, game logs, newbie help with the world's slang and such, it took the edge and intimidation off that I feel when I try to submerge myself in something completely new.
Not only did I find the #S-run community useful, but they were the ones who directed me to other useful resources, such as different forums, boards and even dumpshock itself. It really was the main reason I ever got into playing Shadowrun, and I think it would be a shame to deprive others of the opportunity. I am not a fangirl of different sites, or communities, or anything, I live for roleplaying. In saying this, I don't like seeing people get heated, we should look for a solution instead of debating to pieces what little we had pre-existing.
As MJBurrage says, if there was a section on online play, the sites would be more relevant. And I do to the core of my soul, through the experiences I had in the streets of seattle, laughing, crying, dying beside my comrades, that it is worth the trouble to fix and arrange all this. I'm a newbie to actually Contributing to Wikipedia, I really don't trust my english or knowledge enough to submit facts :P, so I don't know what the whole scoop is, but I know it would definitely be worth the effort, if it will get even one more person interested and playing Shadowrun.
I had played some D&D campaigns on IRC since it's hard to find people around where I live, I also love to read, so a text based game like one on IRC really helps me put myself into my character, the story and the world completely. AnneBanning (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia negatively affected by the presence of the fansite links? If someone could explain that detriment maybe that would help swing more opinion in favor of keeping it off. On the other hand, maybe the fansite operators should look at getting some mention on whatever site is considered 'official' or 'reliable' or whatever easy to throw around word the Wiki-gods want to use to differentiate between dumpshock and everyone else. I don't claim to have any kind of understanding of group dymnamics, but this sounds like the sort of argument that won't die until one side decides it's not worth thier time and cedes to the other. This, dudes and ladies, is the mass of my two cents: The Wiki-gods run Wikipedia, and say Dumpshock is OK. Get Dumpshock to reference you as legit and the problem should be solved. Fans should stand up for thier hobbies, but need to know when to stop screaming at the wall and walk around it. (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)JayMitsuru (#S-run regular)
The #S-Run community is dedicated to Shadowrun. What better people to have insight on the game, comments on arguments that come up about rules, the play of the game, and everything else that goes along with an RPG? We're not trying to direct people to the channel and to only play there. The play of Shadowrun is encouraged... anywhere. Many of the GMs and players are on other networks. It's not about promoting that channel, that community, it's just about the game. That's it. Give people a choice in where to go... Dumpshock (which I'm sure has some great info, but if it's a discussion board I won't go. I hate discussion boards and I don't want to read through pages and pages of posts) or a site that has everything organized into different categories in the style of Wiki? My personal opinion is the latter, the next person to read this may love discussion boards. --Thahopey (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (#S-run Regular)
I believe that the #S-run community is an applicable link within the Shadowrun wiki's featured links section due to the fact that it is a dedicated community of gamers for the very subject of the wiki. I do not believe that it detracts from the page as a whole nor do I see that it is an advertisement link as it is a link to a community of people dedicated to such things and not to a single person's dedicated website. Yes the website, as of late, has had some problems due to web hosting issues but in the past and in the future it was a repository of much information, additions, links, tools, and various other helpful things for shadowrun gamers and GMs alike. Further more the community and it's moderators have always promoted the game in a polite manner so as to attract more and more players to the fold. I do not think I would defend the link's placement if the people who it linked to were immature or incompetent. In short I believe that the link is an asset and that it assists in people understanding and, one would hope, playing the game.Malikial (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In general[edit]

Multiple external links to fan sites were recently removed by another editor, and said removal has been questioned above.
To address the fundamental question What is wrong with fan site links?
How many links do we allow? If we limit it to say, four, which four? By what criteria?
The answer in general—as with article inclusion—is notability. If reliable sources have discussed the site than its inclusion would be reasonable.
If any of the sites in question are as good as their moderaters and users say they are, than such citations should exist.
MJBurrage(TC) 08:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I go accepting that you just modified the forums and the post arrangements from that of their original posters, I am going to have to ask what is your level of authority? Are you indeed a moderator and/or administrator? Or just a contributor who likes to police the Shadowrun Wikispace of sites other than Dumpshock? Do you indeed have the authority to "allow" anything? Or are you serving as a spin doctor?
Solorunner (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Define "reliable source." Not everyone has the same level of backing as Dumpshock. As far as a limit, why does there have to be one? Isn't there enough "pie" for everyone? Couldn't you just make them their own page? It sounds your still attempting to push a Dumpshock only agenda. CrimsonD (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to include Dumpshock, as it's probably the best repository for Shadowrun information online. #S-run is more of a community than an information source. Dumpshock is worth linking because of the sheer volume of information. I don't have enough personal knowledge of #S-run to say "yea" or "nay". I'd prefer to see it kept, but have no real criteria to support it, other than "lots of Shadowrun players use it."
I don't think that a hard cap on the number of external links is needed, but any external link needs to really give the reader useful information beyond the scope of this article. Any site that is going to end up being a rehash of information that we've already linked to is going to be superfluous and should not be included. I realize that this methodology will naturally exclude smaller sites. It's unfortunate, but that's the way life works usually. EvilCouch (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Side note: Holy crap, that was a weird string of edit conflicts for me to run into for a talk page that is usually pretty quiet. EvilCouch (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is unaware, we do have a style guideline that concerns which external links and how many are suitable for most articles. I haven't examined the links in question here enough to venture an informed opinion, but this could be useful reading for anyone unfamiliar with it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

I am going to point out -- again, as I did in my original posting -- that the validity of the #S-Run Community link was already questioned and judged on by Ben W. Bell. For reference, you can see *Section 13* of this discussion board entitled *S-Run links*. The website was given the all-clear as a valuable resource and gateway to the online Shadowrun community, and it was decided that it should remain on the wikipedia.
Only due to a loss of hosting was it subsequently removed. Now that the site is being rebuilt -- but still serving as a gateway to the community -- I do not see why there is so much issue with the link being reposted. It was good enough to be permanently linked then, and it certainly is now. The 'External Links' for a Shadowrun wiki are far more inclusive than Dumpshock, which has remained nearly the only website to reside on the page without strong moderation.
See above arguments as to the obvious "conflict of interest" and "ethics" questions this raises.
Furthermore, the insinuation by MJBurrage that Dumpshock's approval is necessary to consider a site reliable is ludicrous. A Fanbase is comprised of its fans, not the creators of a product. The outpouring of support already seen on the behalf of #S-Run is testament to a Shadowrun community that has been around for nearly as long, if not longer, than the Dumpshock Forums. If evidence of age is required, I point to some now defunct, but still valid links -- such as the Big Knobi (, which is still the #1 Google link when searching for "Shadowrun IRC". It lists both Undernet's #S-Run (unregistered at the time) and #Shadowrun in its first entry.
The lack of a website until recent years does not make the #S-Run Community any less important or reliable. The fact that this October it will be celebrating its 13th year of Online Shadowrun Gaming since 1996 is nothing if not a testament to its reliability and importance to the Shadowrun Community and online Shadowrun gaming.
Solorunner (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Addressing a couple of points:
I changed the subject heading levels, since the discussion was becoming more general than any single fan site, and I thought it would make things clearer.
When I described what may be linked to above, I was not suggesting we should actually have a hard limit, but pointing out why we have guidelines related to notability, source etc.
I never said Dumpshock had to approve a link. I said that a reliable source should. Said source could be the Shadowrun publisher itself, or any other reliable source independent of the site in question.
As to those guidelines we have Wikipedia:External links (also linked to by Lankiveil) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (also linked above by myself).
MJBurrage(TC) 09:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources and proof of reliability given. As well as prior consent from Wikipedia Administrators regarding the value and validity of the #S-Run Community website's continued presence as a permanent link on the page.
Solorunner (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a citable source for Shadowrun gaming online—or any of the sites in question—aside from the various Shadowrun fansites themselves? I.E. grounds for inclusion that meet the criteria in Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, it seems to me that they would fall under #11 of Links normally to be avoided. —MJBurrage(TC) 10:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see the above mentioned conflicts of interest and ethics questions, MJBurrage, in regards to your flagrant re-linking of third party websites which the moderators have taken down. It would probably be in your best interests to leave them as is until these matters are resolved. Also, I feel it likely needs to be noted that this discussion is in no way meant to impede the linking of the Dumpshock megaresource on the wikipedia, but rather to justify the appropriateness and necessity of other site links that serve important and worthwhile purposes in the online Shadowrun community at large.
Solorunner (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Simple fact of the matter that S-Run is not encyclopaedic, and adds no encyclopaedic content. It is a site, in your own words, for players to play Shadowrun online. Wikipedia is not a find a player site, or a community centre. The S-Run site adds zero value to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Shadowrun posting board or a collection of links related to a topic. Dumpshock is relevant as this is the de-facto official board for Shadowrun, where official answers to questions are regularly posted to people by Shadowrun developers and line staff. All people have argued here is that S-Run is a fansite that allows online gaming, sorry but that is not encyclopaedic or relevant for addition to Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If encyclopedic content is the clincher in this case, then I insist that the site has exactly that value. It is maintained by the Community members and not only gives them an outlet to play the game, but also serves as presentation-ground for their in-progress and completed Campaigns. The site (being rebuilt currently) contains no less than 7 of these Campaigns, with at least double that number in the process of being organized for addition within the week.
It also/will include(s) a resource for Character Sheets, NPC Profiles, Supplimental Gear for the game, Original Adventures for GM's, Shadowrun/Cyberpunk foreign fan-films subtitled by the #S-Run Community, non-campaign-length gaming session logs, and much more of this sort of content -- being EXCLUSIVE to the #S-Run Community website and not available on any other website or resource/megaresource.
In short, the Campaign is the end result of playing RPG's, and the #S-Run Community site always has been, and will continue to be, a valuable resource for chronicling and maintaining what amounts to several hundreds -- if not thousands -- of hours worth of encyclopedic ('adj.: comprehending a wide variety of information') campaign and game log information for the enjoyment of online Shadowrun gamers worldwide.
Solorunner (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
All of which is made up by other gamers, and is completely unofficial. Totally non-encyclopaedic. It's a pure fansite that adds nothing to the encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia articles aren't here to make people play games, and get involved in your community, they're there as a source of knowledge, accurate, factual and referenced knowledge. Not something gamers made up one day, not a general fansite of something, and certainly not following of people's gaming campaign that is of interest to only a few people. It adds nothing to the article, and as said before Wikipedia is not the place to promote or generally link to the site.
External links aren't there to get people involved, and allow them to join other's games, they're only there to add additional information beyond the scope of the article that is relevant and encyclopaedic. People talking about and posting house rules, equipment and transcripts from their games doesn't add to that. Dumpshock is only included due to it's notability and the fact it is used as the de-facto official forum and sub-site for Shadowrun, otherwise it wouldn't even be on there.
Please read all the policy and guideline documents that have been previously linked on this page and your talk page. Also note that having multiple people come from your site to put forward their opinion doesn't make it more likely for it to be included, as Wikipedia operates by community consensus and isn't a democracy. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Note at this point the attempted inclusion of the S-Run links by yourself fails the external link guidelines under sections 4, 6 and 11, plus the Conflict of Interest rules and sites requiring registration to view most content. On top of it just not adding anything addition to the article that is encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you place sub titles telling the reader of wikipedia what the site they are going to is, that there is no such thing as too many links. ie. Play by post sites, general shadowrun universe information sites, Also you should remember that you can get information from Play by post sites, people log on all the time asking how to run a shadowrun game. This means that the people on the play by post game can answer their questions and they can look in on games and see how to run a game. Since Shadowrun is a RPG, how to run a game is information people are looking for too. Scawire (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to site, or a directory, and there is such a thing as too many links. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There is such a thing as too few links, as there are many valuable resources outside of Dumpshock for Shadowrun on the web. You have said that resources are what is required to make a site applicable to be linked. The #S-Run Community page offers a VAST RESOURCE of game logs and campaign presentations that cannot be found outside of the #S-Run site -- as well as housing exclusive files and INFORMATION that cannot be found on other resources.
The logs themselves are valuable to ALL PLAYERS (not just a 'select few') as working examples of how the rules of the game function during play, as well as a representation of how to roleplay in a game.
I will let my opinion stand on that, and hope that others reading this find the #S-Run Community ( Website a useful enough repository of Shadowrun game information to take interest so that a community consensus can be reached as to the validity of its addition.
Solorunner (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You can hide behind your rules all you want but we see this for it really is. It's nothing less then a shameless attempt to keep shadowrun "in the family" as it were. Regardless of what a site has on it, every site deserves to put on the wiki. Either allow all sites or no sites. If they want a link to Dumpshock then let them put it on the product page. Third party sites bring just as much to the table as a dev run site.

CrimsonD (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of an encyclopaedic article here. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it is not a community gathering ground, and it is not a place to promote your favourite site. Anyway what evidence do you have that Dumpshock is a dev run site? However even if it is, it's still more relevant than S-Run I'm afraid due to it's de-facto nature and area for official answers. A site with over 10,000 registered viewers that is used by the official developers for the subject in question is more eligible for inclusion than a fan site, used to run about 4 games and used by a couple of dozen people. I spent about an hour yesterday going through S-Run and couldn't find any encyclopaedic content. A lot of the site is registration access only, strike out against the rules, and the rest is just logs and associated material to some people's home run games. That isn't of encyclopaedic interest to the world at large, it adds zero to the article on Wikipedia for Shadowrun, and serves simply for self promotion. Quite simply it doesn't meet the rules. Also all the claims for it's notability is completely unsupported by yourselves. Has a quarter of all IRC traffic for RPGs? Where's the evidence? Where are the references to support such claims?
And please refrain from making accusations on these edits. Keeping it in the family? What are you talking about. This is Wikipedia, not Catalyst Games, it wasn't FASA, Wizkids or FanPro previously. This is a neutral encyclopaedic not a promotional vehicle. There are no "shameless attempts to keep shadowrun in the family," as you put it. As explained by myself and several others before, S-Run doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So just because it's a large site with lots of users and articles, it gets thumbs up is what your saying. If the wiki isn't as you put it "a promotional vehicle" then Dumpshock shouldn't be listed, regardless of who uses it or posts. If it isn't run by dev's then it's a fan site and still shouldn't be listed. Relevance is a shaky argument. What I really want to know is what does the wiki have to loose by having them listed? It's always been my understanding that the wiki was a place for information. People looking for Shadowrun are also most likely looking for such places so they can play and I bet most people looking into the matter want these types of links to be present on the wiki. Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't dumpshock a "community gathering" as you put it?
Also, what you call "too many links" I call choice.
I also put it to you to show me where in the rules it specifically states "relevance overrides all other posting guidelines." Because if you can't then you have no argument. Removing all but the DS link is also being bias which is against the rules.
CrimsonD (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You said you viewed the site and that it doesn't meet the standards. Yet you seem to forget is, as has been stated numerous times, that the site is currently in reconstruction.
And where does it say that information must be arranged in an encyclopedic form? Yes, Dumpshock is a huge resource for information. However, having too much information can be a bad thing. Say I had a question about one of the rules. I could go to the Dumpshock forums and spend over an hour searching for an answer. Now, I may find an answer or I may not, or not a satisfactory answer. Then I can sign-up and post my question and wait a day, two days, a week, before recieving an answer. Or, I can log into the #s-run channel on undernet, ask my question and within 10 minuits have not only an answer, but a discussion, explaination, and even examples.
Not all information must be in an encyclopedic format. Being able to interact with knowledgable people in real time can be just as informational if not moreso. (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Calvin
You really seem to forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is created and edited BY THE COMMUNITY. There is no one person that writes it and says "this is how it is." People are able to edit it when they find something that's wrong or if they have information to add. #S-run adds information. A whole lot of information. People can see when games are played, and all games played from an RPG like Shadowrun is home-brewed. You can have two games based on the same setting, same everything and have different players. You'll have two very different games. It's not like a board game where it's always the same. The players are what make the games, the developers make the rules and the world the game lives in. You really should brush up on what a Role-Playing Game is. #S-run shows Shadowrun in action. It shows how the game can be played out, it gives ideas and information about the game. It's a viable resource. --Thahopey (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wished to refrain from further posting, but the opportunity to refute Canterbury Tail's claims is necessary, so I will address these statements in kind:
1) The evidence that Dumpshock is a devrun site is plainly shown on the pages of and Dumpshock(nearly every update). DS was created by and is owned and operated by Adam Jury, the web admin for catalyst, and a sourcebook writer. Conflicts of interest abound! But, AGAIN, this discussion is not about refuting the validity of Dumpshock as a link, but in establishing the validity of OTHER RESOURCES outside of Dumpshock that offer reference materials that cannot be found there. I'm also sure that CrimsonD's statements about keeping it 'in the family' refers to the censorship of other sites non-Dumpshock turning the entire Wikipedia article into one big advertisement, instead of the dissemination of information -- not exactly what is intended to be done with Wikipedia, as I'm sure the admins will agree.
2) The definition of Encyclopedic, as you are so fond of quoting, is as follows: (1.adj.pertaining to or of the nature of an encyclopedia; *relating to all branches of knowledge*. 2.adj.*comprehending a wide variety of information*; *comprehensive*: an encyclopedic memory. -- also, synonymous with 'all-embracing, all-inclusive, exhaustive, wide-ranging') Clearly, you are mistaken as to the definition of the word and its relevance to your argument. The #S-Run Community site is an encyclopedic resource for logs and campaign presentations which are of MUCH value to Shadowrun gamers online worldwide as prime examples of both usage of rules during play, and examples of roleplaying within games -- not, as you keep saying, a couple dozen. The pages used for PRESENTATION are restricted to thwart vandalism -- but *everything on the site* is viewable by the public. Also, in addition to the site being a repository of valuable encyclopedic content, the channel itself is a real-time problem solver and information resource in a different medium than a crowded forum.
3) If you bother to read what was stated about traffic claims, you will see that it involves NETWORKS dedicated to all IRC gaming such as Otherworlders. Their traffic flow is about 200 persons maximum, with an average of around 90-120. #S-Run sees traffic between 30-45 people on avg, which is 1/3-1/4 their traffic flow as stated. Also, to further drive the point home, the monthly-run Catalyst Shadowrun chat boasts numbers between 40-60. Statistics the #S-Run Community carries at ANY GIVEN TIME.
4) Perhaps my favorite part of your argument is this: "As explained by myself and several others before, S-Run doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion." ...By several others, you mean TWO PEOPLE (yourself and MJBurrage) -- by definition, that is a couple, not several. Several is 7 or over, which seems to be the number of persons who have SUPPORTED the addition of #S-Run. I think that says all it needs to about "Community Consensus". The fact is that it is the support FOR THE ADDITION which has drawn several people to speak out, not the DENIAL. Which brings me to my final point...
5) In SECTION 13 of this very discussion board, the validity and value of #-Sun as an external link was brought into question by YOURSELF (as Ben W. Bell). The overwhelming SUPPORT it received, as well as your own access of the information, prompted YOU to agree that it was of value and should remain on the site. It remained there until loss of hosting forced it to be removed. Now that it has found new hosting, it is being rebuilt to the *exact same specifications* as before -- so since it was appropriate (even to you) then, it is still just as appropriate and valuable now -- which in many ways nullifies your arguments in these matters. In fact, the support for the addition of the link has been even stronger this time around, so much so as to already be the largest discussion section on this entire board within 3 days time.
Again, I will cite 'community consensus', as you, Canterbury Tail, stated as being the *deciding factor* in keeping the link on the page. The consensus of the community has been for the addition of the #S-Run link, with only the same two voices repeating the same arguments that are continually refuted through logic, evidence, and overwhelming support from other Wikipedia users -- TWICE, both in this argument, and the previous discrepancy chronicled in Section 13 of these boards.
Solorunner (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well if it's still under construction and will eventually contain its information in a form that doesn't require user registration to access then we can review it again once it's completed it's reconstruction. One thing, at no point have I ever claimed that I have the deciding consensus, it's a community consensus of Wikipedia editors. This is however not a community consensus of people coming from S-Run to say it should be included. Having a barrage of people coming from your community site here simply to try and promote your site doesn't really help matters, and is often considered negatively by many in the Wikipedia community. Again Wikipedia is not a democracy. Canterbury Tail talk 22:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a dictatorship either. As for this so called community of editor's, where are they? Why aren't they backing you up? Plus if it's a consensus among the community then it's a democracy. Also, isn't anyone who edits the wiki a wiki editor? Something else that bothers me and I quote “Having a barrage of people coming from your community site here simply to try and promote your site doesn't really help matters, and is often considered negatively by many in the Wikipedia community. “ Where I come from rallies are how you get noticed by everyone. You honestly except me to believe that standing to get noticed is a negative behaver? I somehow don't think we're the ones who should stop and examine how their acting. You're also making the mistake of thinking only S-Run is here. The Shadowrun Proboards members are here as well. This is two community's acting together; and we want to be heard.
CrimsonD (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also convenient how Canterbury Tail refuses to acknowledge earlier dealings with the same site when it was deemed appropriate already. This entire argument is in that way invalid, as the editors have already come to a consensus as to its appropriateness. Which was ruled in favor of maintaining the link.
The #S-Run Community site does not contain any content which requires users to create and account. If an external link to another wikispace has that in effect at this time, it is at no fault of the mainsite. Please stop overlooking that fact and attempting to use it as leverage (already cited in point #2 of my previous post). Also, if this is part of Canterbury Tail's argument, I will point out that the Dumpshock Forums requires users to create an account to interact with that portion of the site -- where they can ask questions and get information, etc. Thanks.
Solorunner (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't ignore anything, there was no consensus. Only talk from one person from the S-Run community and another editor. Also it seems most links on S-Run (at least yesterday) stated that you needed to be a member to see pages. Canterbury Tail talk 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have triple-checked all links on the site and still haven't found any that require a user to join anything to view all content, not even from the external presentation links (note, if it doesn't have *www.s-run.* in it, then it is technically an external link). Perhaps you were mistaken, and only assumed since it's being hosted as a wiki? Or were trying to edit a space which does not allow public editing?
Solorunner (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not seeing any now either. It's possible Wikia was throwing a wobbly when I was on there last night, I can concede that. Seems fine now. I withdraw the comments about having to register to access the information on the site. Canterbury Tail talk 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The overlap between the writers and developers of the Shadowrun RPG and the people behind Dumpshock is one of the reasons that Dumpshock is a notable link on a page about Shadowrun. A second reason is that Shadowrun books have specifically listed Dumpshock as a valuable resource. The third reason (as has been stated before) is that Dumpshock hosts the de facto Shadowun rules forums.
Lots of players using a fansite does not, by itself, make a site notable for Wikipedia's purposes as noted by Wikipedia:External links.
If any one of the three things that makes Dumpshock notable, was true for another site that would be enough for inclusion.
If a reliable sources reviewed another site, that would probably make inclusion reasonable.
The connections between Catalyst and Dumpshock are not a conflict of interest because neither Catalyst nor Dumpshock is asking for special treatment here, nor are they asking us to especially favour or censor other sites.
The last time this came up, at least two users were removing external links to various fan sites, while three users supported keeping the S-run link (hardly overwhelming).
Having said all of that, I am not saying that no independent fan site should be included in the External links. Only that per Wikipedia policy, such a linked site should be notable enough to have received some sort of third party coverage outside of the community of other independent Shadowrun fan sites. —MJBurrage(TC) 05:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The very fact there is a overlap makes it a conflict and the last time I checked, three is greater then two; which means the links should have never been touched in the first place.
CrimsonD (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The link was removed as it no longer worked, standard practice on Wikipedia. Now we're discussing should it be added in again. And three is greater than two makes no difference, as said before Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't count, consensus and strength of argument are what matters. Five people coming on and saying "this should be included" can easily be outweighed by one person who gives a good reason why it shouldn't be. Not saying this is the case here, but this is how Wikipedia works.
It should also be pointed out that your rallying call here contains an inaccuracy. The link was removed some time ago as it no longer worked. It was then re-added a few days ago and removed due to the conflict of interest. Any just turning up on Wikipedia and saying "this is a valid link" doesn't make it included. Having a large number of people come here to say that it's valid isn't a reason for inclusion as has been explained on here before.. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Dumpshock's the de facto Shadowrun Forum community as MJBarrage put it, then perhaps We can put the S-Run community as the de facto mIRC Shadowrun community. I'm pretty sure Dumpshock have no mIRC crew, unlike us. So they can still be the autority on shadowrun on the forums side of things, but S-Run could be known as somewhere on mIRC to get direct answers quickly (as not everyone is ok to register to some message board, post a message and wait anything between 1 minute to 1 month to get an answer back) a place where they can see and participate in discussions, games, and other shadowrun and RPG related things (well, maybe not always- but it's not like Dumpshock got an Off-topic section, right?) As for no fan site, I just spotted 2 for Jagged Alliance, one who's barely updated (the last log was 5 months ago- liking a program to another fan site linked to Wikipedia). Granted, who plays Jagged Alliance nowadays, but the links are there, leading to forgotten pages about games no one knows about anymore, but they're still there.
Braddoc (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2009 (EST)
An editor here, who works for or administers, either Catalyst or Dumpshock would have a conflict of interest since they are presumably not neutral on either subject. However, that does not make such a connection a conflict of interest when third parties are writing about them. It just makes the connection a germane piece of information—especially since they not only do not hide the connection, but have publicized it. An owner or administer of a fansite does have a conflict of interest when they come here to promote their site.
By wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) asking for neutral wiki editors to add to a discussion is appropriator. However asking users of an outside site in question to come here and lobby for that site is inappropriate.
As I have said many time now, if a properly referenced section on on-line play of the RPG was written; and one of those reliable sources mentions a particular site, then that would probably be grounds for inclusion of said site in the external links. But absent such a section, and a source that meets wiki standards, such a link fails the External links policy. —MJBurrage(TC) 15:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so we just need some guy who doesn't got an Ops credential on mIRC to back-up the site and it'll be clean and done? There's been at least 3 of them on this page; Do you need more, perhaps someone who's a public figure, maybe who's got some degree of authority in the Shadowrun world to maybe not see every line written by us as other than rambling of a bunch of shadowrun players, GMs and fan who are "doing this for themselves"? If so, all right, we'll find a spokeperson then
Braddoc (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (EST)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, its not as simple as a finding a random person who agrees that the site in question is notable. You would need either; mention in a published Shadowrun book, or a link from the Shadowrun publishers on one of their websites, or to host content from a published Shadowrun author, or a citable article by a third party that mentions the site in connection to Shadowrun.
Any one of those should do, Dumpshock for example has at least three.
I.E. on Wikipedia, editors are not supposed to just add things they know/believe, they are supposed to add things they can cite properly. I.E. even a famous expert in a field is not supposed to add things they cannot cite properly. Since we would only have their word on it, even they need a reliable source (even though it may be one of their own publisher papers, since the publishing required some sort of peer review, it becomes citable and not just their say so). —MJBurrage(TC) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
How can the Shadowrun books possibly be a creditable source for Dumpshock when the same people who wrote the books run the site? That's like citing yourself as a creditable source, which is the best example of a conflict of interest.
CrimsonD (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Forget about Dumpshock, forget about WP:otherstuffexists, if you want S-Run to be included you need to show that it's notable and contains content that will make it eligible for inclusion that doesn't violate Wikipedia's External Links policy. Canterbury Tail talk 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
S-run is the largest shadowrun irc channel I am aware of on the net and the Proboards are the 2nd largest pbp site that I'm aware of. Is this not enough to make them notable? Since you like pointing out wiki-policy, then I will point out that dumpshock violates rules 10 and 11 of Links normally to be avoided of the Wikipedia's External Links policy, as it contains both forums and blogs. Yet it's still here. Further proof we're being treated unfairly and unethically.
CrimsonD (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Dumpshock's forums are the de facto official forums for Shadowrun, and it is run by recognized authorities on the game. Not only is this not a conflict of interest, it is the reason the site is notable. Stop worrying about Dumpshock and find a citable source for the importance of online play to this pen & paper game, and S-run's or Proboard's place in that area. —MJBurrage(TC) 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure how much more neutral or third-party you can get then Nearbygamers. They even have a shadowrun section that lists both proboards. They seem to think the site's important enough to direct people to. It even list's dumpshock.
CrimsonD (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also not a reliable source. Seems to me all that is going on here is people want to promote the site S-Run, not add it for it's encyclopaedic value and extra value it adds to Wikipedia or it's mission. I have nothing personally against the site, but nothing has been provided to show it should be included on this page. A site that allows a few dozen people to play a game, and contains some IRC chat channels that is considered high numbers by measuring in a sufficiently small enough demographic doesn't make it a good contender to be included. Proboards as an entity are notable, which is why we have an article on them, but the specific Shadowrun forums aren't. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

OK, another take on this. It is a fansite, it does not add to the page, so it fails the external links guideline and we don't even have to discuss using it as a source. Some arguments I see here, are generally of the what about page X type. In short, that another site is here is not a reason to include this (it might be a reason to remove the other one!), that this site is mentioned on another site is a case for the inclusion policy of that site, but it fails the inclusion policy of this site. As Canterbury Tail questioned above: what does this site add to Wikipedia, that is the question that needs to be answered. Bringing in ops from the site, or whatever is not going to help, more people that are somehow affiliated with the site do not bring more weight. Consider asking some regulars from a suitable WikiProject to reflect their ideas. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure it's a wonderful site, but this page isn't here to provide it with traffic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not looking for traffic from the Shadowrun Wiki. What we're looking for is an acknowledgment, that was given before the hosting issues previously, that the #S-Run site does contain valuable information. It shows how the games are played, how the mechanics work. The books explain it well but for some people it doesn't click until they actually see a game in progress. That is why logs are posted. There are also other bits of information to help new players. It is a real time environment where people can come and ask questions about the game from people that have played it for years. If they stay, great, if they don't that's OK too. We're there to help new and old players alike. That is all. It's not a fansite that's all about "oh yay, shadowrun!" it's "Hey, this is Shadowrun, this is how we play it." It's really just that simple. It may not be run by the Devs like Dumpshock is, but it's run by people who put what the developers wrote down into practice nearly every day of the week. --Thahopey (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a how to guide, we're not here to explain to people how to play these games, just to give a general encyclopaedic overiew. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Kinda like the bookworm who knows everything thanks to his books, but got no real-life experience; Dumpshock got the info, we got the field experience. Both are important, but one can never completely replace the other.
Braddoc (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2009 (EST)
We add to the article by adding value to the community as a whole. The dev's make their living off of shadowrun and a few other games, we don't. That makes us notable.
CrimsonD (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current article and the content of the external websites, both s-run and dumpshock should be removed per WP:EL. Past history of the EL section isn't a factor. The ELs need to meet the guidelines today or have consensus today that an exception is required for some reason. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

S-run: The article says that "Shadowrun is a pen-and-paper role-playing game". There is one instance of "online" with no details whatsoever. As a reader, I would be pretty confused to be linked to an online game when that's not what the article is about. Instead of fighting over this, step back and look at the big picture. Is the article wrong? Is the online version notable enough to have it's own article? Is it a totally different game (as seems to be indicated by some comments above that it includes content not sanctioned by the developer)? Should there be a section in the article with sourced refs for many different online versions? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dumpshock: There are links to 7 different sites within the domain from the official site, all of which explain exactly what is linked. It seems much better for readers to go to the official site and then to a Dumpshock site as necessary. Right now, clicking the Dumpshock EL just puts you on some news page which is totally out of context. If you want higher visibility for Dumpshock because it's really so essential to the game, take it up with the admin of the official site. It's not the place of Wikipedia to elevate a site beyond whatever value the official site places on it. Before you even try to disagree with this logic, how about the links to 8 other non-Dumpshock sites that get prime billing on the official site? Should we have ELs to all of them as well? Just because the owners and users of those sites may not be Wikipedia editors doesn't mean they are any less important. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair points. We'll remove Dumpshock as well. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on Dumpshock, and there is not consensus to remove it. On the contrary even those lobbying for S-run etc. above acknowledged that Dumpshock's notability was not an issue. It is recognized by the publishers as a valuable site both in published books and on their website. It also hosts the forums where a player of the game can find official rulings on the game itself.
This is not an all or nothing issue, where inclusion of one link automatically allows another, nor does asking for a reliable source for one links notability, mean that there cant be other links. Each stands on its own. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There was never any consensus to remove Dumpshock. The majority of the editors here seem to favor its inclusion. I'm not really sure what UncleDouggie means by "the links to 8 other non-Dumpshock sites that get prime billing on the official site". It doesn't appear to be accurate statement. None of the weblinks that appear above Dumpshock at have anything directly to do with Shadowrun, with the exception of the French site for Shadowrun. Actually, I could see getting included in the External Links section, as it fits WP:ELMAYBE #3 perfectly. In absence a better directory of links, the official Shadowrun links page is actually a pretty good fit. EvilCouch (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There are actually four non-Dumpshock links on the official site for which some type of argument could be made for inclusion (I'm not seriously proposing that these be added, I'm just listing them to make my point):
It's always possible to make an exception if neutral editors agree that including a link to Dumpshock improves the Wikipedia article. To do so, there should be a well reasoned argument on this page as to why the link is being listed that is backed by editors without a conflict of interest. Editors with an interest in alternate sites also should recuse themselves. Each supporting editor should make clear any involvement they have with Dumpshock. No consensus is needed to remove the link. By default it's gone since it doesn't meet the guidelines for an EL. Consensus would be needed to keep it. For example, is it really a second official link that is somehow to cumbersome to reach form the primary official site? If the link is retained, a much better description should be included beside it and it probably shouldn't link to the front news page. It should go directly to whatever content is the reason for including the link.UncleDouggie (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Wow, ok, I saw a request for another set of eyes over at WP:ELN. Wikipedia is not here to connect people to games via external links, because wikipedia is not a social networking site. Wikipedia normally is not a place to put links to fansites/forums. The exception are those by a recognized authority and are notable. This exception is meant to be very limited. I believe this link fails to meet this exception, particularly at this point here. I'm sorry, but I would say the link (S-Run) should be left off. JoeSmack Talk 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose I have nothing against the fansite's existence, you understand, but it's not an appropriate choice for Wikipedia. For example, it's an open wiki, and ELNO #12 prohibits links to open wikis. It contains no encyclopedic information except what should already be in this article. It's just not a good match for Wikipedia.
    Again, it's not that I dislike the website; the issue is that the website doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the current drift of this conversation, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- the idea that mistakes made at other articles give you license to screw up here -- is an explicitly and formally rejected argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't actually know what you're referring to, but I'd like to point out that ELNO #12 doesn't prohibit anything. In fact, there are virtually no rules per ce for the Wikipedia. There are guidelines, which are not really the same thing. EvilCouch (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Be aware, people are now talking about two different links and getting them confused. The majority of discussion on this page is about the inclusion (then deletion) of the S-Run link. Dumpshock was only removed very recently, but the main discussion point is still the S-Run link, not the Dumpshock one. Just as a heads up as otherwise it's going to get confusing really quickly. I suggest we discuss the two of them separately, going back to the S-Run link that makes up the vast majority of this page. Canterbury Tail talk 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is a good link directory site? I don't see S-run on it. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - Not really. It's pretty sparse on links to real content and seems to be specialized towards linking gamers up with forums. It lists six sites that don't fall under the "get connected with the community" banner: the official site, Shadowrun, Dumpshock, and three of the various publishers. EvilCouch (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard[edit]

I've taken this to the Admin noticeboard to have some other neutral eyes look over this. Canterbury Tail talk 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I already took it to the admin notice board about 18 hours ago, thanks.
Solorunner (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

External links debate summary and options[edit]

All right, we've had a decent amount of opinions churning over the past few days and I'd like to summarize as best as I can about where we stand and what we can do from this point.

Points of interest

  1. The external links section of the Shadowrun article could stand some improvements.
  2. The is no debate over the inclusion of the official homepage
  3. There is some debate over the inclusion of Dumpshock.
  4. There is much debate over the inclusion of S-Run.
  5. There is the possibility of other external links.
  • The debate against Dumpshock's inclusion includes:
  1. The homepage of Dumpshock does not contain any immediately useful information, nor is it clear what part of Dumpshock a user should go to for a specific query.
  • The debate for Dumpshock's inclusion includes:
  1. It has heavy involvement by the developers of Shadowrun.
  2. It contains forums for Shadowrun, which have become the de facto official forums.
  • The debate against S-Run's inclusion includes:
  1. The S-Run website is not encyclopedic and does not add information.
  2. The concept of S-Run's online play may be confusing for the uninitiated.
  3. Several of the proponents of S-Run's inclusion are affiliated with the site.
  • The debate for S-Run's inclusion includes:
  1. The IRC channel is likely the most active RPG channel in existence.
  2. The IRC channel is a pool of readily accessible information to assist players in understanding game rules.
  3. There is a large amount of fan-made material, including character sheets and logs of Shadowrun games that were run online.
  • Possible other links include:
  1. [2] - Official collection of external links
  2. [3] - Fan-maintained collection of external links

Possible actions Each option in this list is intended to be separate from the others. i.e. supporting one does not mean that you cannot support another. If one of the proposals would be amenable to you if it were modified, please state so in your opinion brief. If you have a reasoned opinion (for or against) one or more of the inclusions, please state so and why. For those that have not participated in a Wikipedia consensus discussion, the traditional etiquette is to voice your opinion (Support or Oppose), with any possible modifiers to clarify your opinion (e.g. Strong or Weak). Examples: Strong support and Weak oppose. Please indent opinions to the right of the possible actions and comments to the right of opinions. Remember: this is not a vote. Opinions need to include reasons. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent, concise summary. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Include Dumpshock

  • Support - The amount of information that it includes and the active involvement by the developers clinches this for me. This would be a strong support, except that it is true that Dumpshock's main site is news that is not helpful for someone who does not already understand Shadowrun. Linking to the Sixth World Wiki might be a better move. It's discouraged by WP:ELNO#EL12, but is relatively stable. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Forums aren't encyclopedic. Appropriate detailed links are already given from the official site. Would support a link to a developer controlled page of details on Shadowrun if there is such a page on Dumpshock. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not possible under Wikipedia's rules for any website to become a de facto official link: Either it is controlled by the entity -- in which case is it the "de jure" official link -- or it is not controlled by the entity, in which case it is not an official link for Wikipedia's purposes. As an example of control, the company that makes the game could unilaterally decide to remove a damaging message from a forum that they control; they could not force its removal from a website that they don't control (although they could "request" or "encourage" its removal, and bring all legal means of persuasion to bear in support of their request). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Whether you call it "de facto" or "de jure", the people behind Shadowrun are the people behind Dumpshock. The forums at Dumpshock are the place to go for answers from the writers and developers to rules questions. I.E., while forums are normally discouraged as external links, Dumpshock gets the "Recognized Expert" exception. —MJBurrage(TC) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Include S-Run

  • Weak oppose - If we could link to IRC channels, this would be a strong support, but as it is, it's not an exceptionally useful website. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article doesn't discuss an online version of the game. Could consider whether it is notable enough for its own article or if the current article should be expanded. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - If there was official sanction of the site, or recognition from neutral and citable third party sources it would be "weak support". —MJBurrage(TC) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Include a different external link

  • Support including the official collection of links. As link repositories go, it's pretty solid and is maintained by the developers. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The official site shouldn't have two links. The fan page isn't complete as described above. Would support a good directory site if we could find one. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding (yet) another link to the official website. WP:EL strongly discourages having more than one link to any given website. We have to assume that our readers know how to click on links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for including the official collection of links (indented under the existing official link) – I could see an argument for not including both this link and Dumpshock (since Dumpshock constitutes a majority of the links). But one or the other should be here. —MJBurrage(TC) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Official forum[edit]

For many years, the Dumpshock Forum ( was the de facto official board for Shadowrun (enough so that it was mentioned as such in the published game books). However, since 2010 there has been an actual official board, hosted by the publisher ( This effectively replaces Dumpshock as an official source of information about the game and game world. I just noticed that another editor has updated the external links accordingly, but thought confirmation of the reason for the change here was appropriate given the past discussion. —MJBurrage(TC) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, and I'm about to remove it (and not replace it with the Dumpshock.) Reasoning, it's a subsite of the main site, and thus shouldn't be in the External links as it's accessible from the main page already linked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

teensy quibble on cursing[edit]

In section "Fourth edition changes", we state:

For example, up to this point, cursing had been illustrated with a variety of colorful made-up words, such as "drek", "frag", and "slot". FanPro eschewed these in SR4 (to some player complaint, as many fans believed this added social color to the game) and decided to use their contemporary, real-world counterparts.

However, "drek" is not a made-up cuss word, it is a real world Yiddish cuss-word. It literally means "faeces"; see List of English words of Yiddish origin. -- (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic English[edit]

"The most noticeable difference between the Matrix in the 2070s and the earlier editions is that wireless technology has become completely ubiquitous." The meaning of this claim is unclear, as there is no such thing as incomplete ubiquity. The statement should be clarified with examples and proper English usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial intro revision[edit]

Let's step through the changes I made. 1) The current (at this moment) main Shadowrun book is set in 2072 because of when it was published. They're not going to come out with a main book every year, nobody would buy them that frequently (since most of it wouldn't change). As you can see at the official stance is that the game is set 65 years in the future. 2) I mention the extraterritoriality that megacorporations have. "Ok, they have armies," someone new to Shadowrun might think, "But the government can always roll in and enforce the law, right?" Nope. 3) This is Shadowrun and yet the main intro doesn't even mention cyberware, bioware, or magic? Those are practically the cornerstones of the Shadowrun world. You're right, though the "obviously" isn't encyclopedic, I'll take it out. 4) I defined "shadowrun" as "missions undertaken by deniable assets". 5) I deleted the "sinless" reference. Sin, to most people, means an act that violated a morale rule. Most SINless Shadowrunners sin all the time, so I thought that an explanation of what a SIN was should wait until later in the article when it could be explained in more depth. 6) Likewise, the "chance of a new life" doesn't quite mean what people completely unfamiliar with Shadowrun might presume it means, so I took it out. 7) I also felt that a discussion on PC/GM dynamics should be preserved for later in the article, given the wide variety of possible scenarios for a Shadowrun adventure. Banaticus (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the books themselves:

  • Shadowrun (published 1989, set in 2050) 61 year difference
  • Shadowrun: Second Edition (published 1992, set in 2053) 61 year difference
  • Shadowrun: Third Edition (published 1998, set in 2060) 62 year difference
  • Shadowrun: Fourth Edition (published 2005, set in 2070) 65 year difference
  • Runner Havens (published 2006, set in 2070) 64 year difference
  • Street Magic (published 2006, set in 2070) 64 year difference
  • Augmentation (published 2007, set in 2070) 63 year difference
  • Emergence (published 2007, set in 2070) 63 year difference
  • Arsenal (published 2007, set in 2071) 64 year difference
  • Corporate Enclaves (published 2007, set in 2071) 64 year difference
  • Runner Havens (published 2007, set in 2071) 64 year difference
  • Feral Cities (published 2008, set in 2071) 63 year difference
  • Ghost Cartels (published 2008, set in 2071) 63 year difference
  • Runner's Companion (published 2008, set in 2071) 63 year difference
  • Unwired (published 2008, set in 2071) 63 year difference
  • Running Wild (published 2009, set in 2072) 63 year difference
  • Shadowrun: 20th Anniversary Edition (published 2009, set in 2072) 63 year difference
  • Seattle 2072 (published 2009, set in 2072) 63 year difference

Originally Shadowrun (under FASA) was set at +61 years, Fourth Edition (under FanPro) was +65, but since then (under CGL) it has been +63. One website that has not been corrected since FanPro wrote it does not change all the books published since then. —MJBurrage(TC) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Slowed down now, new books are only 62 years out. State of the Art 2073 has just been published and all the other recent releases have been dated in the books as 2073. Canterbury Tail talk 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Some dodgy assumptions[edit]

There's a bit in the discussion of the 4th edition mechanics about them being "not coincidentally" similar to the new World of Darkness system. This seems, as far as I can tell, a baseless assumption.

Similarly, under "Influences", there is a connection made between the faux swearing of Shadowrun and Battlestar Galactica which also seems to have been made without any evidence to back it up. For example, the universe of Judge Dredd also has similar terminology, and as a whole is a much closer match to the setting of Shadowrun than BSG is.

Both of these strike me as original research, and should probably be changed. Kelvingreen (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The WoD comparisons there is no evidence for, and there are plenty of other RPG rule systems that use similar mechanics. Faux swearing has existed for a long time, and Battlestar Galactica (the new series) has no connection to Shadowrun. If it's not referenced we can't draw a comparison, so feel free to edit it out. Canterbury Tail talk 11:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 Mayan Long Count[edit]

The following line states: "In 2011, the end of the Mayan Long Count ushers in the 'Sixth World'..." The end of the Mayan Long Count is 2012. Is this a mistake on the writers part or is it an error on the wiki page. I haven't played the game for a few years, and I remember that 2011 was indeed the year of the Awakening, but I don't specifically remember the reference in relation to the end of the Mayan Long Count calendar. Livingston 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not explicit, but it is implied. The best reference I could come up with is in the first two editions it refers to in the "And So It Came To Pass" sections that some critics pointed to the Mayan calendar as indicating the change on December 24th 2011. So it does look like it is meant but the authors either A) got it wrong or B) since most of the items are written from an in universe perspective some people in the setting got it wrong. Unfortunately we can't tell which one. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I was looking for references and came up with the following interesting tidbit from the Shadowrun Returns website (link):

According to the Mayan Calendar (and lots of tabloids), the world will end on December 21, 2012. It’s part a 5,200 year cycle of death and rebirth that, in Shadowrun, actually charts the ebb and flow of magic from the Earth. So, on 12/21/12 magic will return, end this world, and wreak holy havoc while starting the next. Aboriginal cultures, who maintained their mystical traditions, are the first to feel the return of magic and use their newfound power to reshape the political, financial, and physical world around them. As the magic increases, Elf and Dwarf babies are born to very surprised parents who carry the right combination of long-dormant genes. But all of these events pale in comparison to the horror of "goblinization", which painfully reshapes the teenage bodies of those unlucky enough to carry dominant Ork or Troll genes. And then the first Great Dragon rises from its 5,200 yearlong hibernation and circles over Tokyo, signaling that the world has truly AWAKENED.

It seems that they did indeed intend the connection, though this may be a bit of a retcon, and they have now used the proper time instead of the previous 2011, which would certainly be a retcon. Livingston 16:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any retconning in the game, every edition published uses the line "and the real kicker came on 24th December 2011" or some variation. In no place have I seen it retconned to be 2012 in the Shadowrun publications. I just did a quick scan through all 5 editions, and it's the same in each one. Even Sixth World Almanac, the latest book in the line to give a history, uses 24th December 2011. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware that's the official date from the games, which is why I thought it was interesting that Jordan Weisman made the above statement on the site I linked as 2012. If that is the date he is sticking to in Shadowrun Returns and the Anthology that's being released with the game, then it would indeed be a retcon to the original date. Of course whether that would be a retcon contained only within the game setting, thus making it an alternate reality of the Shadowrun universe, separate from the mainstream version, or if it would be an official retcon to the mainline story, only time could tell. If the game is successful, they may very well use it as grounds to release a new edition of Shadowrun, tying it closely to the game and any changes they've made within it. None the less, I find the change interesting. Livingston 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The 21 December 2012 date is not universally agreed upon by the experts, it is just the most agreed on now. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the most agreed upon date was 24 December 2011. Popular examples of the 2011 date include: Rod Serling in the 1975 documentary “The Outer Space Connection, Leonard Nimoy in the 1978 documentary “In Search of Mayan Mysteries”, and of course Shadowrun (every version published to date) —MJBurrage(TC) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The source for the older correlation date is apparently Michael D. Coe; according to one website, the following is from the 1966 edition of his book The Maya:

The idea of cyclical creations and destructions is a typical feature of Mesoamerican religions, as it is of Oriental. The Aztec, for instance, thought that the universe had passed through four such ages, and that we were now in the fifth, to be destroyed by earthquakes. The Maya thought along the same lines, in terms of eras of great length, like the Hindu kalpas. There is a suggestion that each of these measured 13 baktuns, or something less than 5,200 years, and that Armageddon would overtake the degenerate peoples of the world and all creation on the final day of the thirteenth. Thus, following the Thompson correlation, our present universe would have been created in 3113 BC, to be annihilated on December 24, 2011, when the Great Cycle of the Long Count reaches completion

So it looks like researchers adjusted the Mayan–Gregorian calender correlation sometime in the 1990s, which shifted the presumed end date from 2011 to 2012. Until a published Shadowrun game or book changes the date, we should leave the 2011 date in the article. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And even if the new videogame does use 2012, this article is about the RPG. So it needs to stay as is. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hence my previous statement: "Of course whether that would be a retcon contained only within the game setting, thus making it an alternate reality of the Shadowrun universe, separate from the mainstream version, or if it would be an official retcon to the mainline story, only time could tell. If the game is successful, they may very well use it as grounds to release a new edition of Shadowrun, tying it closely to the game and any changes they've made within it." Never once had I suggested that the article should be changes to 2012. I don't know why so many people on Wiki's have to take every statement as some kind of argument. Chill out FFS. Livingston 08:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)