Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

So, what is left?

(Courtesy pinging potentially interested editors: User:AugusteBlanqui, User:BD2412, User:Bilby, User:Casliber, User:Daranios, User:David Shepheard, User:Drilnoth, User:Frecklefoot, User:Guinness323, User:Hobit, User:J Milburn, User:Jclemens, User:Necrothesp, User:Newimpartial, User:Oknazevad, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Sangrolu, User:Sariel Xilo, User:Shadzar, User:Torchiest, User:Toughpigs, User:Vulcan's Forge, User:Webwarlock)

Well, aside from our many articles about game supplements, adventure modules, video games, game designers, and much more?  ;)

If you have been living under a rock for the last several months, you may have missed that our project's selection of articles on fictional elements has dropped dramatically. In some cases we were talking about things so minor that it is unlikely that even one single independent reliable source has ever or will ever exist for it. In some cases, we are talking about things that one might presume a case for notability could be made, but were still deleted or redirected (see *Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where#Is a deleted article always gone forever? for a selection of topics which may have potential for the future; see *Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts/Archive for the full list of deletions going back to 2010), but in some cases an article survived an AFD either by the skin of its teeth, or by legitimate improvement through addition of independent reliable sources.

That leaves us with the question of what is left, and what can be done for them. The momentum on deletion efforts slowed down considerably in March 2020, presumably because there was not much left to delete. In the process of working on all those AFDs, some people were able to identify a few independent reliable sources that can be used for monsters and other fictional elements; it might be a good idea to see what other surviving articles those can be applied to, or what sources can be found for other fictional element articles. Since we already have people looking at what to get rid of, I figured it would be a good idea to explore what we have left to see what we can still keep. Some of these have survived AFD so far, while others have not been nominated yet and may still be, although I could have missed some:

On the one hand, that is still a big list. On the other hand, it is a small fraction of what once was – probably not even 10% of the fictional element articles we had a year ago. So pick something, anything – add it to your watchlist if you think it might be vulnerable, add any sources you can find anywhere, or just cross your fingers and hope for the best. Some of these will probably survive (another) AFD, some will be deleted, some will be merged. It is debatable as to whether or not having fewer articles is an objectively "good" thing, but having fewer articles does at least make them more manageable, so I think we can set more reasonable expectations for looking at what we can actually improve from what is left. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The tidal mark/truce point at AfD is >2 significant mentions in secondary sources, so that is what has to be aimed for for any article to be 'safe' and even then depends on who turns up to an AfD. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, where my main efforts lie, I started a list of secondary sources. They are very much with regard to monsters, but some of the sources definitely have content on other topics, too. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Boz. I'm going to pick a couple and start working on them. I'll put my name next to them on this list. Also, will be interesting to see if the deletionists use your list to target additional articles they 'missed' going through the categories. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I imagine they will, but in life sometimes you need to take risks. I'm hoping that this will lead to more good work than anything else, so thank you for any efforts you can contribute. :) BOZ (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And, our first round has started. ;) Glabrezu is pretty minor, but Lolth, Asmodeus, and Kobold may have potential that the nominator (as usual) has undoubtedly overlooked. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

One more for now, the Lich, same as those mentioned above. BOZ (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Current AFDs include Bulette, Epic level, List of prestige classes, and List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes. BOZ (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Add to that, List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons, and List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cataclysm (Dragonlance) is now at AFD. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The Sundering is now at AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bag of holding was sent to AFD a few days ago, now Portable hole just today. BOZ (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

War of the Lance is now on its 3rd AFD. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I redirected Helm (Forgotten Realms) and Selûne rather than being deleted by PROD. AugusteBlanqui, you can always restore later if you had more sources to improve it. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Savage Coast is up for AFD. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mordenkainen is at AFD; I believe he at least likely gets some coverage in Designers & Dragons which I have, so I will check that later today. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

World of Eberron is at AFD now. BOZ (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

One more, List of Dragonlance artifacts. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kender (Dragonlance) is up for merge, Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun and Elaith Craulnober are up for PROD. BOZ (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Dragonlance creatures is now also at AFD. BOZ (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Time of Troubles is now at AFD. BOZ (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Neverwinter and Waterdeep are both at AFD. Happy Thanksgiving! BOZ (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Kara-Tur is also at AFD. BOZ (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wulfgar is up for his third AFD, and Tiamat is also up - those seem like good potential candidates to have additional sources. BOZ (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And, I was right! :) Both were closed as Keep. BOZ (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Jarlaxle is now up for his third try as well, but I think he may be more along the lines of the last two. BOZ (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Erevis Cale is up for his second AFD. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Circle of Eight is at AFD. BOZ (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing for a few months, but now the Troll article is at AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ravenloft domains is up for AFD. BOZ (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Abeir-Toril has been nominated for merging after an unsuccessful AFD. BOZ (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not on any of the above lists, but probably tangentially to D&D, Characters of The Order of the Stick and Metaplot are up for AFD. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Rokugan is up for AFD. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, just a suggestion, if anyone is so inclined (not me for a long time yet ;-), for articles that need improvement which I would hate to see go: The List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and related lists. They might be helped with content from Religions in play: games, rituals, and virtual worlds and other secondary sources brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer Plane. These could of course also help Outer Plane and Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Also great, but a lot of work would be a parent article Religion in Dungeons & Dragons or some such, based on the same sources and possibly benefiting from stuff found in Dungeons & Dragons controversies with the allegations of satanism, demon worship, promoting paganism... Daranios (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well since Illithid/Mind-Flayer, and Beholder are trademarked to HASBRO/WotC that should give them some notoriety by legal precedent? shadzar-talk 15:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be inclined to think that, at least, it couldn't hurt. :) BOZ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there actually any place within the now-existing articles where D&D's experience points are discussed? Mizer, Nicholas J. Tabletop role-playing games and the experience of imagined worlds. Cham, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-030-29127-3. OCLC 1129162802. on pages 33-34 has a very much non-plot discussion about them, linking getting EP for gold in the original edition with Protestant work ethic, but I would not know where to include that. Also, on pages 31-32 there is a discussion about the importance of the concept of the adventurer for the game and its appeal, should anyone want to go into that. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is Experience point. :) BOZ (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but surprisingly that article does not seem to say anywhere what one get's experience points for! And I did not want to go in so deep as to create such a section :-). Daranios (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, looking again it does so shortly in the very beginning. But that again is too prominent a place to add that bit from Mizer/Peterson :-). Daranios (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Clements, Philip J. (December 2019). Dungeons & Discourse: Intersectional Identities in Dungeons & Dragons (Thesis). p. 78. Retrieved 2020-09-16.</ref>

This thesis should be another great secondary source for a number of D&D topics. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been doing excellent work on finding additional sources for D&D topics for the last few months - thank you! :) BOZ (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Religion as a Resource in Digital Games: Another secondary source about religin in D&D (based on the example of Baldur's Gate). Daranios (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that after the release of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, I believed we had enough material to restore the articles on Darklord (Ravenloft), Ravenloft domains, and Vistani... so I did. :) BOZ (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To keep better track of former fictional element articles, today I started an outline for User:BOZ/DnD deletions and that will probably take me a few weeks to put together. For all other games-related deletions, I just spent four months building User:BOZ/Games deletions if you are wondering if I have the time and energy to get this done. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I am mostly done with the above page - it look a while - and I have a new project I am going to put together in relation to that. Will update you here sooner or later. :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Online

Just alerting the project that this article was gutted yesterday, in case anyone has any sources to help rebuild it. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Kim Mohan

It appears that Kim Mohan has died. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Damn. Such a nice fellow. None of us get out of here alive... BusterD (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Dungeons & Dragons

Pinging the editors who have edited this article the most often over the last six months: @Sariel Xilo, @Woodroar, @Oknazevad. BOZ (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

One way to start is to get the article reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors or at peer review. I already have an article in the GOCE queue (you're limited with the number of requests so you don't overwhelm them) so I can't request this article right now. I haven't used the peer review process but it is the process that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates recommends. Article should probably only be listed at one of these at a time so any preferences? Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, I've requested a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Jaleigh Johnson

hi everyone, Jaleigh Johnson is the author of, among other works, the tie-in book to the D&D movie Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves: the Road to Neverwinter.

I have a draft article for her in my sandbox User:AugusteBlanqui/sandbox, with sourcing based on a reviews in established periodicals. Two questions if someone wants to give their 2 cents:

1. is the sourcing good enough to satisfy notability?
2. How do I add that impressive looking 'authority control' box at the end--do I have to wait until the article is published to mainspace and becomes a wikidata item? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the criteria WP:AUTHOR states is: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. This is from a literary agency (so not a reliable source for notability) but it lists out that The Mark of the Dragonfly (2014) received multiple starred reviews, was a New York Times bestseller, and was nominated/won a bunch of awards. If you could trace those back to the original sources (ie. the original Kirkus & Publishers Weekly reviews, the award announcements, etc) and incorporate that, I think that would help especially if you could do it for other books Johnson has written. WP:ANYBIO also states The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times so having an accolades table could help the article. Shing Yin Khor might be a good example of incorporating reviews of works (although the quotes in that article are probably a touch too long) & Xiran Jay Zhao has an awards table you could model Johnson's on. Both of these articles highlight the author's award wins in the lead and Zhao's highlights that they're a New York Times Best Seller in the lead. Hope this helps! Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Red Wizards of Thay

If anyone has time for a little project, I think it's time the Red Wizards made a comeback, so grab your sources and see what you can do with Draft:Red Wizard. :) BOZ (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I also got Draft:Harpers (Forgotten Realms) restored. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Dungeons & Dragons (album)

I have nominated Dungeons & Dragons (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Russ Nicholson

I'm seeing early reports that Russ Nicholson died last week, but I am not seeing anything official yet. BOZ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for review: Stefan Pokorny

I am working on an entry for "legendary Dungeon Master" Stefan Pokorny and will appreciate any thoughts, corrections or additions. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stefan_Pokorny_(designer) Kstern999 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Best of luck! 207.229.139.154 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Metagaming (role-playing games)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Metagaming (role-playing games)—has been proposed for merging with Metagame. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Gary Gygax Day in Lake Geneva this Thursday

At 2pm 7/27/23 the mayor will be dedicating a bench in Gygax's honor and has already proclaimed July 27, 2023 "Gary Gygax Day" in Lake Geneva. I've seen the proclamation with my own eyes and it's seen on social media but I can't link to it or coverage yet. If anybody spots it first, please source it. Thanks!!! BusterD (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Gary Gygax GAR

If anyone can help address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gary Gygax/1, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've asked the initiator to clarify their first objection. In the mean time, the disputed tag can probably be resolved just by changing the voice in the wording, and prose polishing doesn't need specific guidance. Really, I've read through it again, and it's aged better than a lot of GAs promoted 15 years ago. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

Hello all,

Is there interest in maintaining Portal:Dungeons & Dragons ? Should it be kept? Or perhaps quietly redirected to Portal:Games, or brought up for WP:MFD? It doesn't appear to have been maintained at all, has two links to the main D&D article for me and some random images. It has 5,707 incoming links, but only 10-35 hits per day (pageview stats). That is a truly miserable amount of pageviews for something so highly linked.

As a bit of backstory, there were some bitter Portal debates back in 2019 that tried to cleanup a proliferation of created-and-abandoned portals. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons technically closed as keep, but opinion was quite mixed at the time, and the general lack of interest since suggests that it might be willing to take another look. To the extent there's anything useful on the Portal page, it's Template:D&D topics, but that Template already exists on pages like the main D&D article, and is probably what users are really looking for if they want to find more See also-esque articles.

I bring this up because there's a concurrent debate at the Video Games Wikiproject about possibly deprecating their portal (see WT:VG) that currently has near-unanimous support for deprecation, but it might be slightly awkward to propose that for deletion while there are still other unmaintained gaming-related Portals with even fewer views. But if several WikiProjects agree that it's not worth it at the same time, that might resolve any "consistency" arguments. (Or, alternatively, make clear that there is a difference of opinion.) SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As much of a keeper as I am, and you see I didn't even respond to that one. ;) I'm thinking while it is a cool idea, no one put any effort into maintaining it, and something like that does require effort. I think it was nice in its time. If there is any way to archive it so the curious can look at it as a historical artifact, I'm cool with that, otherwise I would be OK with just redirecting it. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Before we dump it, let me take a look and see how it might be automated in such a way it doesn't need much maintenance. I'm of the minority opinion we should keep at least a small number of portals, but I'm a known portalista (maintaining P:ACW for most of my wiki-career). If I (or anyone else) can do it, representing the general subject matter using promoted works, then we should keep it. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm down for giving you a chance. :) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge-class

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 44 § Project-independent quality assessments

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like Merge-class from your banner. If Merge-class is removed, then most of the pages in Category:Merge-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles should end up in Category:Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles. You may also like to keep track of merged articles in a different way, perhaps with a parameter |merged=yes which would then populate a category — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with switching merge-class former articles to redirect-class. I suppose that was one way of keeping track of certain things years ago, but I doubt it really ever mattered much. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks, this has now been done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)