Talk:Dungeons & Dragons

Dndbeyond reverts

@Sariel Xilo. @SkumbergletheRat: guys, please remember not to WP:EDITWAR. How about we discuss this here and I can act as a mediator? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the revert. We should rely on reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources like D&D Beyond. In addition, the source didn't support the claims being made; it didn't highlight longswords, plate mail, dagger of venom, or either the hand or eye of Vecna. (Yes, they can be found at D&D Beyond, but it was SkumbergletheRat's choice to mention them specifically.) If we're going to feature specific items as iconic, we need to let our reliable sources call them out. Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus! Just want to flag that I'm not the IP who reverted SkumbergletheRat after their 4th inclusion. My initial revert was due to the paragraph essentially being OR and when challenged, SkumbergletheRat re-added it with D&D Beyond as the source. Per Woodroar, the primary source isn't highlighting specific items and we shouldn't rely on primary sources for determining what items are notable. I think SkumbergletheRat (as a new editor) doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards on sourcing per their response to my talk page notices on reliable sources. Since SkumbergletheRat wanted the concept of items to be highlighted, I pulled two sentences (with secondary sources) from Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). I don't think we need to get hyper specific on items when there's an article focused on D&D's magic items. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be appropriate to cite primary sources for some simple explanation of mechanics (though the SRD itself would be a better choice than D&DBeyond), but I agree that it should be done to the minimum amount necessary for readers to understand the topic. Calling out specific examples that are especially notable should really only be with secondary sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry for any confusion, but I was simply talking about those items as examples. Sorry for the complaints as well, I recently made the account and was upset that all of my edits were being deleted. It won’t happen again. SkumbergletheRat (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know it can be frustrating to have content removed. I would suggest checking out the tutorials for new editors; also, you can bring questions to Wikipedia:Teahouse which is a great resource where experienced editors help answer those questions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@SkumbergletheRat I am glad to see that we are now past the R step of WP:BRD and we things seem to be safe in the D step. In the future, remember that it is best practice to go to the talk page and start a D(iscussion) after the first R(evert). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Per above, that paragraph should be removed for being poorly sourced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost as an aside, from the discussed and now removed section: Thanks to Sariel Xilo for working in the condesed version! The classes of magic items are already featured at Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). What I think is nowhere present on Wikipedia is the importance of mundane items in the game. I think this might actually be a worthwhile addition if someone wanted to have a close look at this, presumably within Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. In a quick search I only found very short comments on those in secondary sources, though, in Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds p. 278, Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana, p. 404, Game Love: Essays on Play and Affection, p. 69. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SkumbergletheRat, please stop removing other people's talk page comments. You may remove your own comments if no one else has replied to them, but you do not have the right to remove other people's comments from a talk page. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I am removing this topic many times because it is no longer relevant. The page is over an edit war, this has been resolved by all parties. I am removing it because no one else will respond to me about the removal of this non-relevant topic. SkumbergletheRat (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkumbergletheRat, this topic isn't just about you or your edits. It's for anyone who might want to add content from D&D Beyond in the future, or anyone who digs through the article's history and wonders why there were so many reverts, or for literally any other reason. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is deleted. Eventually this topic will get archived, just like the 200+ other topics that have already been archived. If you'd like it to get archived any time soon, I'd suggest that you stop replying—because topics are archived based on inactivity, every new comment resets that timer. Woodroar (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Publication.

I know it’s comparatively trivial, but do we have a publication date?

Beyond just 1974?

Cheers.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the closes I've seen: https://www.blackgate.com/2014/01/28/40-years-of-adventure/ 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, that blog doesn't really arise to a reliable source. And neither is the blog that it references, which is decidedly non-committal about an exact date and essentially picks the day at random to serve as a date to have a 40th anniversary party, not to state it was the release date.

Because, as both blogs note, the game didn't really have a formal release date, as it kinda just trickled out. It's not like modern practice in media releases where there's a firm street date. What date would we actually use for D&D? The date the first copy was printed? The date the first copy was sold? What about the fact that the game was already being played by the original campaigns by the time of the first publication and early copies were given to those players? So to answer the original question, no, we don't have a date beyond early 1974. And I don't think we really need one. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Acaeum.com also proposes January 1974, and lists, among others, Jon Peterson as their source, just as Black Gate does. Maybe more officially, the Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third Series 1976: July-December, p. 1761, has an entry "Dungeons and Dragons ... 30Jan74...". I wonder why this appears in the 1976 volume. I assume this means D&D was registered for copyright on 30 January 1974, and the copyright was renewed in 1976. But we would need someone who knows better how to read the entries in this book to be sure. But this could be the reliable source we would want to see. That said, the arguments of oknazevad about there not being one "true" publication date still hold. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)