R&S Example page/Gurps Infinite Worlds

[moved here from the Community Portal]

looks to me like an RPG sourcebook that should be deleted. So do pretty much all of the other books published by -- all seem to be part of GRUPS, a very generalized role-playing system. However, IIRC, the GRUPS books often distill and bring together a lot of info on an SFnal universe or series. Are they begin kept on that basis? Or is it just that nobody happened to notice them? I didn't want to delete something that had perhaps been carefully preserved without asking. -DES Talk 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I kept the one partly on "good NONFICTION background material for a SFnal universe" basis, and partly on "above a certain threshold" for Terry Pratchett, and partly as I can see that a lot of the artwork has been reproduced from "IN" titles. But as I've never got round to reading it I'm not overly protective of it. I have no idea what "Infinite Worlds" relates to though. BLongley 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on This site it seems to lay out the basis for a role-palying game set in a culture with access to many alternate worlds, something like Piper's "Paratime" setting. It appears to be an invented setting by SJG, not based on any one work or written SF, but using concepts from several such works.
 * We also have from SJG:
 * , from title and cover based on the works of
 * , presumably based on the P. J. Farmer books
 * (Sourcebook for Brin's Uplift universe. )
 * based
 * Apparently based on the Gene Wolfe novels
 * Discworld Roleplaying Game: Adventures on the Back of the Turtle
 * , and
 * Plus, SJG's site lists a fair number of more "generic" GURPS volumes we don't have on file. I have omitted a couple of revised editions of the above.
 * Several editors seem to have thought these should be included. I don't have strong views, one way or the other. I can see excluding them as RPG materials, or including them as reference works on various well-known SF settings. But I would like there to be agreement on which, preferably documented somewhere for future reference.
 * Previous discussions of the matter:
 * ISFDB:Community Portal/Archive/Archive04
 * User talk:Dcarson
 * ISFDB:Community_Portal/Archive/Archive05
 * Seems like a recurring topic. -DES Talk 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions of the matter:
 * ISFDB:Community Portal/Archive/Archive04
 * User talk:Dcarson
 * ISFDB:Community_Portal/Archive/Archive05
 * Seems like a recurring topic. -DES Talk 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to justify the exclusion of any work that includes in the title the 'name' of a series or in work, or that includes in the title the 'name' of a SpecFic Author. These are often considered Universe Canon (Either collected from other sources, or expanded upon with new material).  Just because it also has ties to a role playing system doesn't remove the fact that it is a 'book' and it is SpecFic in a recognized series/universe. This confluence of facts (Spec Fic, Book, Part of in series) means that even if they get deleted today, they will continue to sneak back in over the years.  Probably best to include them, with defined rules why these are in, and D&D and other similar source books are out. Kevin 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Infinite Worlds should go I think. It has a nice fictional crosstime setup but is not related to any actual SF published as fiction. The rest of the list I think are excellent sourcebooks on series we already have in the database. We should include them for the same reasons we have A Guide to Barsoom. Dana Carson 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely include all Nonfiction books, including source books, directly related to speculative fiction (Discworld, Lensman, Riverworld, etc). Conversely, we can safely exclude non-fiction that describes an imaginary/speculative setting that is not related to speculative fiction. The problem arises when a source book is related to a fictional world that originally wasn't fictional fiction-derived, but has spawned speculative fiction, e.g. Warhammer 40K -- see ISFDB:Community_Portal/Archive/Archive05 linked above. Ahasuerus 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Worse than the Warhammer 40K stuff might be Dungeons and Dragons - there are many sourcebooks for subsets of the D&D Universe. But if we go for "the fiction must have come before the sourcebook", we're on less slippery ground. BLongley 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very clear, and objective place to draw a line. 'The Fiction/universe must have been published first'. While we could get bogged down by judging each one independently, etc, this removes all that pesky 'interpretation' from the process. Kevin 17:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that would help eliminate most RPG sourcebooks, but what about Star Trek/Star Wars "technical manuals" and other non-fiction based on fictional universes that have spawned a considerable amount of SF? We have quite a few of them and although I personally wouldn't miss their disappearance all that much, a fair amount of work has gone into entering and organizing the data. Ahasuerus 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not too bothered about the extra Star Trek NONFICTION, except maybe the Calendars. We don't have the Star Trek RPG here, AFAICS. The trouble with RPGs is that you let in the sourcebook, then you get the campaign settings, then the individual modules, then the Moderator Screens, then the figurines and the special polyhedral dice... (Yes, we have had to delete dice!) BLongley 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)