Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Books Nav Menu

After above discussion, here (User:HooperBandP/Sandbox) is my sandbox example of a possible, non-edition-bias menu. Suggestions/thoughts are appreciated. This would require making those list pages, however, though I have no problem handling that process. Hooper (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CM Modules

I'm not really a member of this project, but I just copyedited all of the CM module articles (CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, CM6, CM7, CM8). For starters, I made them all into real articles, but I also cleaned up the wikilinks, removed unused sections, etc. If I violated some D&D WikiProject Law or Guideline, then smack my behind with a melon rind, but that's my wikignome state of mind. Cheers! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look pretty good from here but I don't know a whole lot about the modules. Thanks for the help though. Baron (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight irregularity in the monster lists...

Don't know if it was already resolved or not, but I just ran across a web enhancement for one of the 3.0 books (Ghostwalk, to be exact) and it contains some templates and, further complicating things, update rules for 3.5 that adjust stats to coincide with the structures of 3.5. Looking on the Wizards website, many many books have such enhancements or updates that may or may not contain additional monster information. Are we going to do anything about this, by which I mean, do you want me to add them in for this case and in the future? I would say we should maybe do the book itself and the web enhancement in its own box right below it on the 3.0 page and then have some special thing on the 3.5 list page which contains references to the updated monsters, but this might be redundant. I guess I favor redundancy to information loss... Baron (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the templates as i understand them are not really monsters, but a way to alter existing mosnters. for example to make a vampire gnome or something you add the vampire template to the gnome race. the list just catalogues monsters with full given stats. since the monster lists exist to prevent each non-notable monster from having its own article, but being included, then the templstes really dont fit as a monster itself IMO. shadzar-talk 10:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but then again many of the templates come with a sample creature that was created and is fully statted out which leaves me with mixed feelings regarding their inclusion in the list. I guess I tend to side more toward more information than less, and for the moment I'm going to leave the templates in the lists I put up. We can certainly remove them if the decision is made to remove them. In fact this may be a good time for everybody to weigh in and make that decision so that we can put some sort of note on the list pages so that people adding books or working on the lists don't freak out and start adding them or removing them or whatnot. As far as the other bit regarding the web enhancements, I would say let's leave them out for now and simply do what is listed in the books. If other people have an opinion and believe the web enhancements should be added, then please chime in. Baron (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can handle this issue by whatever makes the most sense. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragon paths and epic destinies

How should we handle these? IMO the best options would be to list them in a "list of paragon paths and epic destinies" article or separate "list of paragon paths" and "list of epic destinies" articles. We could also incorporate them into the "list of prestige classes" article, which is already fairly long, or the individual class articles, which would be problematic if not all PHB paths and destinies are class-specific, or if non-class specific paths or destinies are introduced in future supplements. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So far they just seem to be another thing like class abilities, so I would say placing them with other similar things should work. shadzar-talk 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Psionics

Right now, psionics information is divided between Psion (Dungeons & Dragons), the list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes and spells of Dungeons & Dragons. I think that these articles and sections should be merged into a single article: psionics (Dungeons & Dragons), with more details on psionics in earlier editions, and on the other SRD psionic classes such as Psychic Warrior. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan on going through with the merge some time next week. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. It totally needs doing. Ford MF (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's done. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Troy McClure

Hey look, Troy McClure just became a featured article! That might make a good example of how a fictional element can be written up to make a good article. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Jéské Couriano. You may remember me from such films as "Fight for Sources", "Revert Renegades", and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. What strikes me is that a lot of the sources for the article are from the Simpson episodes, aka primary sources, themselves. Now if that were the case then certainly characters like Paladine who plays a major role in the Dragonlance franchise could be raised to a similar level. After all Troy is only a "minor" character who no longer even appears in the The Simpsons. One (albeit a very particular one) could even say he was nothing more than one of hundreds of stock characters in the Simpsons. Of course we all know what is really needed here, Itchy & Stratchy to be raised to a feature article. After all a fictional show within a fictional show should never be on Wikipedia. Web Warlock (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, or how about the Krusty the Klown Show? Of course, according to the Wiki article on Krusty (if we can believe the Guardian) we have "In 2003, Krusty was included in a special history of Jewish entertainers exhibit at the Jewish Museum in New York City." Shocking! A fictional character being included in a special historical exhibit! We know that "awards" or "honors" such as these never mean that the fictional character being honored is in any way notable.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I detecting some tongue in cheek from Mr. Warlock?  ;) BOZ (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just a little snark. ;) Web Warlock (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Webwarlock isn't quite right when he says that most of the references in the Troy McClure article are the episodes themselves. In fact most of the citiations from #9 on in the reference section are not Simpsons episodes but are from other sources such as interviews, articles and books about either the Simpsons, Phil Hartman or about Troy McClure or other Simpson's characters. Also note that while there is a section of the article that summarizes Troy's appearances in episodes, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the article deals with real word topics like how the writers came up with Troy as a character and how they dealt with Phil Hartman's death by retiring the character.

Presumably in order for a DnD related character to receive featured article status, it would have to have similar treatment. That is, it would have to have a good portion of the article devoted to real world topics and use sources other than just the rulebooks or novels in which the character appears. 63.111.163.13 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

4th edition ships early/leaks

Seems like yesterday there was a leak, possibly from a printer, that has seen brand manager Scott Rouse taking action to find online PDF sources of leaked copies of the core books. Also Buy.com and maybe even Amazon seems to have shipped copies out 10 days prior to the street date and people have been getting them in the US all day long in the mail. Others report being able to buy the books from local stores. How should we handle this here? Should anything new wait the remainder of the 10days for the offical street date of 4th edition, or should we not try to watch for these things, and just correct them after the official release date? shadzar-talk 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until we have the book(s) in our hands. :) BOZ (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So we should not worry with any changes to the D&D articles based on advance release of the books, and jsut let them happen until we have the books to verify the information, or until therelease date and allow information to come out since we can not disprove anything without the books ourselves? shadzar-talk 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No information is published until the publication date. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on wiktionary's definition of publish, they would technically be published as soon as someone makes them publicly available under definition 1, and would technically be published as soon as the publisher ships them to the retailers under definition 2. Are there any guidelines or precedents for handling broken release dates? -- Gordon Ecker 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dare to dream

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/19-year-old-gamer-becomes-mayor-of-oklahoma-town/1215787 :) BOZ (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

John Tyler Hammons - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms WikiProject?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms - BOZ (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kender

OK, Gavin seems OK with it, and I have cleared it with the mediator Vassyana, so I am soliciting some assistance with this current part of the mediation process.

One task is to find sources for the article. This includes not only finding third-party sources to firmly establish the notability of kender, but also sources to use as citations for the information currently in the article, or for information that is not in the article but should be, or if you have any suggestions about good places to find references. If you feel bold enough, you can post the source directly on the page; otherwise you can post on this talk page and it will be copied to the sources page.

You can also help with the trim page; however I would ask that you not edit the project page itself, but post specific ideas on the talk page if you feel bold, or post here otherwise.

Please, if you do post on any of the above mediation pages, try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments to a minimum (avoid them completely as possible), as that can easily degenerate into the typical sort of argument and kill the mediation process. BOZ (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea where to look for sources that establish notabilty? This search doesn't come up with much besides book reviews of Kender, Gullydwarves, and Gnomes and some stuff that's not in English. White Dwarf? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the puzzling conundrum! BOZ (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy of The Annotated Chronicles, which I've found some good info from before, but if someone already has a copy it might be worth flicking through for useful tidbits. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have made any extensive search online, through Google Scholar, The British Libary, UK News Archive and found nothing. I suspect the only chance of finding an article that features extensive coverage of Kender will be found in a US newspaper, so if anyome has access to a US newspaper archive, I suggest looking there.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, those searches won't look at the full text of every reliable source, or even "all but US newspapers". There have been indications of coverage in early White Dwarf magazines (back before WD was company-specific; I'm not sure there's even much connection between old White Dwarf and modern White Dwarf). There are also online reliable sources, but it takes some work to evaluate them. SamBC(talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have added reliable secondary sources to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim, and although this article now conforms with WP:V, it still does not meet the requirements of WP:N because the sources cited are about the Dragonlance games, novels but not Kender per se. If anyone can find a reliable secondary source that provides real-world non-trial content about Kender (i.e a quote from an independent source that is more just a few sentences that mention Kender is passiing), that would be really useful. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:Fictional Characters Guidelines

Figured I'd bring this to your attention, since I think it's something that affects everyone here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Ford MF (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Southeast Faerûn PROD

The Southeast Faerûn article has been put up for PROD. If this proves to be the consensus then, to be consistent, the Faerûn and Geographical index of Toril trees should be examined for PROD candidacy. I have no particular preference; it's nearly impossible to prove the notability of these FR sub-topics. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the same user has PRODded a number of Forgotten Realms articles, including Silver Marches‎, Shining South, Silverymoon‎, Southeast Faerûn‎, Shaar‎, Baldur's Gate (city)‎, Chultan Peninsula‎, Cold Lands‎, Cormanthor‎, Dalelands‎, and Cormyr‎. Additionally, he nominated the Dragonlance novel Wanderlust for AFD. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these could be merged into a couple of articles. I have no knowledge of Forgotten Realms myself (I am a Greyhawk guy) so I would not know where to start. Web Warlock (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Faerûn would probably be a good place to start.  ;) BOZ (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And, with that, I'm going to begin redirecting these articles into Faerûn today; something tells me Faerûn will stand up to deletion for now. If anyone wants to do any merging of info, or restore the articles later when sources are found, well the edit history will be there for you to peruse. :) BOZ (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge assessment template with WikiProject Role-playing games

I think that it would be a good idea to merge the assessment template {{D&D}} as a parameter in the assessment template {{RPGproject}}. Every article in the D&D projects should also be grouped in the RPG project, though not the other way around, so merging the templates his should streamline assessments and make the list of included articles for both projects more complete. For an example on how this works, check out how the United Nations wikiproject's assessment is done through a parameter of the international relations wikiproject, for example at Talk:UNESCO. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just one opinion, but I don't agree with this. The number of D&D articles is more than the total number of other RPG articles (i.e. those with {{RPGproject}} on their talk pages). I believe that the current separation of the articles is a good thing. I'm not trying to be exclusionary one way or the other, but it is useful to have this distinction between D&D articles and non-D&D articles. Granted, the number of assessed D&D articles has been decreasing lately as more articles are (rightly) being redirected, but this doesn't change my opinion. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the D&D WikiProject is bigger than the RPG WikiProject is exactly the problem I am trying to fix. Any article in the D&D project should also be in the RPG topic; one is a subset of the other, just like in my example above how every article in the UN WikiProject is also in the International Relations WikiProject. You would still have a distinction between D&D and non-D&D articles because all articles would either be in both projects or just in RPG project. The D&D project would still have its own assessment categories and tables, but we would increase the number of tagged and assessed articles in both projects. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I misunderstood your proposal (or maybe not). I think that the categories should remain separate, i.e. Start-Class D&D articles would be disjoint from Start-Class role-playing game articles, and so forth. This doesn't seem to be how it works in the example you give. There's also the matter that there's more than just the D&D WikiProject, there's also the Dragonlance one, the Forgotten Realms one, etc. Of course, it would be nice to hear from others about this.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Publication histories

OK, for some time now I have seen complaints about how so many D&D articles are written from a 3E perspective. With the release of 4E, I can easily imagine (and to an extent, have already begun to see) that people will rewrite a lot of the articles from a "recentist" 4E perspective. Part of the problem is, that since many of these articles are wholly or largely written from an in-universe perspective, it seems perfectly OK for an editor to just make a switch to whatever is current and gloss over the history.

So, I'm proposing adding a "Publication history" section to each D&D article. If we show how the class, race, monster, or character in question has been used through the years, it will help to show that there can be more than one perspective to look at it. Also, this is informative to casual or novice gamers who may not know the full history behind whatever aspect of the game they are looking up.

Taking a couple of examples of the most iconic aspects of the game that have been there from the original edition until the newest one, both the beholder and Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons) already have publication history sections. I think these sections can fulfill the dual goal of both framing the subject's history in the notable appearances it has made, as well as providing important out of universe information such as designer notes, and critical reception and the like. The latter may not always be available (or just hard to find), so I propose starting with the former and letting the rest fall into place over time.

One idea I had, which I wanted to pitch here before I go head and start going crazy with it, is to place headings for each edition of the game which is pertinent to the subject. I thought of this while I was creating the List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. This will force at least a minimum of discussion for each edition, and keep the content focused on how it was used in each edition. Possibly also, this can be used to a degree to discuss mechanics changes from one edition to another rather than allowing people to assume that the most recent version is the only one worth discussing ("The green blob was chaotic evil in the first edition Monster Manual. It was chaotic neutral in the 2nd edition, and the blue blob was introduced. It was chaotic evil again in the 3rd edition Monster Manual, which featured only the blue blob. In the 4th edition Monster Manual, both the green and blue blobs appear, and they are lawful good, as the designer said he wanted ...") but again, I leave that up to discussion here.

For a sample of how this could work, I reformatted the Orcus and beholder Publication histories, which might look something like this. We'd probably want to get the years in which the books were printed as well.

Orcus

Orcus is one of the most detailed demon lords of the Dungeons and Dragons game and one of a small handful to be detailed in every edition of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons (1974-1976)

Orcus made his first appearance in Eldritch Wizardry supplement for the original (white box) Dungeons and Dragons game.

Dungeons & Dragons (1977-1999)

Orcus appeared in the Immortal Rules set, in the DM's Guide to Immortals.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition (1977-1988)

He was given coverage in the 1st Edition AD&D Monster Manual. He was a central antagonist for The Throne of Bloodstone series of adventures.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989-1999)

For the 2nd Edition of the game, Orcus suffered the same fate as many other demons and was not included as part of the core game. He did resurface as part of the Planescape line of products and much of his current history and details were established then.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition (2000-2002)

As of 3rd Edition, Orcus made his first appearance in the Book of Vile Darkness. Orcus’ reappearance in the rules was even used as a selling point for the book (among others) and his image was featured in the online art gallery previews.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition (2003-2007)

He was also featured again in the Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (2008-)

Orcus appears in the 4th edition Monster Manual.

Beholder

Unlike many other Dungeons & Dragons monsters, the beholder is an original creation for D&D, as it isn't based on a creature from mythology or other fiction. Rob Kuntz's brother Terry thought up the beholder, and Gary Gygax detailed it for publication.

Dungeons & Dragons (1974-1976)

The beholder was introduced to the game in its first supplement, Greyhawk (1975), and is depicted on its cover (as shown in the section below).

Dungeons & Dragons (1977-1999)

The beholder appears in the Companion Rules set, in the Dungeon Masters Companion: Book Two. It later appears in the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition (1977-1988)

The beholder appears in the first edition Monster Manual. Ed Greenwood authored "The Ecology of the Beholder," which featured in Dragon #76.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989-1999)

Second edition supplements to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, especially those of the Spelljammer campaign setting, added further details about these classic creatures' societies and culture. The beholder appears first in the Monstrous Compendium Volume One, and is reprinted in the Monstrous Manual. The book " I, Tyrant", and the Monstrous Arcana module series that accompanies it, greatly develops the beholder further.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition (2000-2002)

The beholder appears in the Monster Manual for this edition.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition (2003-2007)

The beholder appears in the Monster Manual for this edition.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (2008-)

The beholder appears in the Monster Manual for this edition.

Discussion for Publication history idea

Whether you like what I did above, or just think we need to go with a prose publication history (or have a better idea), let me know. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. It will help remove some of the in-universe perspective I think. I made a minor change to the headers under Orcus. Web Warlock (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Webwarlock. Good work, BOZ!--Robbstrd (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes of confidence. ;) Anyone else? Yay or nay on that format? Yay or nay in general on including a publication history in every article? Why or why not? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I've been unhappy with the recentism of D&D articles in the past, and I think this will help a lot. --Rindis (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it will help too with the recentism and the over-reliance on in-universe perspective, but I just don't want to ugly up these articles or anything with too many headings. :) If it's not too many, then let's go with it! BOZ (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of headers we could make them bold since headers will alter how images next to them are displayed. We should check the Manual of Style. Web Warlock (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points. What does the MoS say? BOZ (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and just ran with my idea. :) Please discuss here any thoughts you may have on it. I'll do some other articles the same way if no one cares what I did with Orcus and beholder, otherwise I'm open to discussion on how to improve this idea. BOZ (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also added this to Illithid, Sahuagin, Moradin, and Corellon Larethian. More to come, although I'm not sure when. :) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Got Gruumsh and Death knight as well. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Got Troll (Dungeons & Dragons), Pelor, Owlbear, and Displacer beast. From now on, I'm not going to update this page (since it's either fairly uncontroversial, or just no one's paying attention), but you can follow my progress on my user page. :) BOZ (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a basic publication history for Loviatar, though I'm sure Loviatar appears in some more books. I'll add some more basic publication histories to deities (I guess I'll start with Torm, who's taken up Tyr's place in 4e), though I'm sure that since these are articles that are likely to be picked off by AfDs, it'll likely be futile in the long run. --Muna (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey cool, you're the first person to take me up on that.  ;) Not positive that they'd be sure to lose at AFD - Lathander, Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) and Mystra (goddess) among others have managed to avoid the axe, if only barely. Still, in the meantime, the publication history section does improve an article a lot in my opinion.  :) BOZ (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Treasure of talon pass

I will definitely not remember to add this, but if someone picks up this free adventure this weekend(free rpg day) would they please add it to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules and/or List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures 63.171.230.113 (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always add it.  :) BOZ (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)