Official content?[edit source]

This is not official D&D content. Is the wiki open to third-party content now, or should this article be removed? JEB1981 (talk) 04:25, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

I think there's room for articles on certain third-party publications of particular historical noteworthiness, like this one; it's the largest D&D 3rd edition adventure module. Similarly, there are articles on notable third-party publishers. However, content from those products isn't canon. You can have an article on World's Largest Dungeon, but not an article on any NPC specific to that book. BeardWizard (talk) 17:22, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
The third-party publishers we have articles on, Goodman Games and (newly-added) Kobold Press, are companies that produced works that are either official (Kobold on the first two 5e adventures) or officially licensed (Goodman on the Original Adventures Reincarnated line). Other companies that qualify under such a criteria include Paizo (which produced Dragon and Dungeon in the 2000s), Green Ronin (which produced Out of the Abyss), or Sword & Sorcery Studios (the 3e Ravenloft line). AEG (the company) probably qualifies as well, since they produced D&D 3e Rokugan material under the "Oriental Adventures" label. However, I wouldn't think there should be articles for every notable D&D-compatible work those companies produced... just the ones that were officially licensed. And I wouldn't have previously considered this wiki a place for articles related to companies like Fantasy Flight Games or Mongoose Publishing, which have never worked on officially approved material.
I guess I'm also concerned that unless pretty strict criteria are set for what constitutes a "historically notable" third-party work, opening the wiki up to articles like this means accepting a lot of unofficial content. And that could become a problem later on if it leads to references to unofficial material in canon articles. Also, even works I would consider objectively notable, like Pathfinder products, Green Ronin's Freeport line, or the infamous Book of Erotic Fantasy, seem like questionable additions to a wiki focused on D&D canon.
Personally, I advise only including information on third parties that produced officially licensed D&D material, and only creating articles for those officially licensed works. That said, it seems worth noting other notable works, like World's Largest Dungeon, in the articles for those third parties. So I would advise folding this article's content into a larger article on AEG, rather than giving World's Largest Dungeon an article of its own.
As a sidenote, I'd love to see a wiki on third-party D&D works... I just don't think this is the place for such. JEB1981 (talk) 20:32, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a stub AEG article. If there's no opposition to my argument above, I will go ahead and merge this article into the AEG article in the near future. JEB1981 (talk) 03:12, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.