Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hey there. :) In our recent push to get D&D articles up to Good Article status, we have been successful with Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast. My original intention was to move immediately on to Dragonlance and then Forgotten Realms. However, looking at both of them (and Drow, the only other article in the 0.7 CD selection), I realize that they are both hardly referenced at all, and even then are referenced mostly to primary sources. I know that they both have as much potential to get to GA as the EGG and WotC articles, but due to lack of sourcing and relying on in-universe info, they are both a long way off.
What we need are reliable sources, with which to source the info in these articles. If you have a book or magazine or something and can do the sourcing work yourself, then great. If you can point me to a website, then I can do the work. We need creator interviews, product reviews, publishing and sales information for the product lines, etc. I may move on to nominating comic book articles, but I'll give this some time in case someone comes up with something quickly, and if we find something later I'll definitely revisit this. :) BOZ (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What about Player's Handbook? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What about it? Are you thinking of nominating it, or do you mean using it as a source? ;) I like what you're thinking, but at present the article is really bare and would need a lot of work just to get it past Start class. Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual are in a similar state. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant that we could work on it to try and move it in the direction of nomination... but I guess you're right about that. I'll search around a little bit to see if I can find something else good. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Compare with Libris Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness, and Ravenloft (D&D module) for the amount of work that will need to be done to get those to GA. I'm certainly not above doing the work (as you may have noticed), but let's get a better handle on what we're doing - thus why I'm asking for some "reliable sources" before I go ahead with DL and FR. If you can find any others which are solid C or B class with halfway decent referencing already to non-primary sources, then great, otherwise I'd prefer to stick with the ones I mentioned above for now and get them sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll start work on Forgotten Realms next (that is, right after I get the new WP:D&D main page functional). Do you think that Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting should be merged into it? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, that one's for the book/boxed set, not the product line or setting. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. My main reason was because there is some product information in Forgotten Realms. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The main article should definitely talk about the FRCS boxed sets (1E & 2E) and books (3E & 4E i presume), as well as any other notable products, and any video game and other adaptations. The FRCS article should have more detail about that specific product than you would want to find in the campaign setting's article. One thing that comes to mind is we should expand on the series of Dragon articles regarding the Realms that preceeded - and caused the demand for - any official FR products. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although many of the old members of the Dragonlance Wikiproject (including me) are no longer active (or don't have the time to contribute), I would like to congratulate you on taking the initiative to improve these articles; they've been sitting around for a long time. Ddcc 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The main article should definitely talk about the FRCS boxed sets (1E & 2E) and books (3E & 4E i presume), as well as any other notable products, and any video game and other adaptations. The FRCS article should have more detail about that specific product than you would want to find in the campaign setting's article. One thing that comes to mind is we should expand on the series of Dragon articles regarding the Realms that preceeded - and caused the demand for - any official FR products. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. My main reason was because there is some product information in Forgotten Realms. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, that one's for the book/boxed set, not the product line or setting. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll start work on Forgotten Realms next (that is, right after I get the new WP:D&D main page functional). Do you think that Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting should be merged into it? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Compare with Libris Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness, and Ravenloft (D&D module) for the amount of work that will need to be done to get those to GA. I'm certainly not above doing the work (as you may have noticed), but let's get a better handle on what we're doing - thus why I'm asking for some "reliable sources" before I go ahead with DL and FR. If you can find any others which are solid C or B class with halfway decent referencing already to non-primary sources, then great, otherwise I'd prefer to stick with the ones I mentioned above for now and get them sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant that we could work on it to try and move it in the direction of nomination... but I guess you're right about that. I'll search around a little bit to see if I can find something else good. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What about it? Are you thinking of nominating it, or do you mean using it as a source? ;) I like what you're thinking, but at present the article is really bare and would need a lot of work just to get it past Start class. Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual are in a similar state. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD
Presuming this project might be interested. - jc37 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If you've got some time on your hands
Any help with User:HooperBandP/Sandbox would be appreciated. I think it would be really handy for those surfing through the D&D section of the wiki. Just alot of compiling that needs to be done. I'll get it where I want it to be eventually, but help is always loved. Hooper (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks interesting... maybe something like that could be put in the new general D&D template that has been discussed above. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've got the basics of each edition page set up and under construction. Mainly just verifying the list, gathering all the books, and getting a ref or so (I'm not sure if I can use the D&DWiki as a ref. When I'm not at work I'll see if the WotC site has a list somewhere for ref). I think the hardest will be combing thru all editions to gather all the campaign-specific releases in one page, but I think it'll be worth it in the end. Hooper (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neat, I like it! I was thinking that we needed something like this... BOZ (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- You'll need a page for the other 2E settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun), either on separate pages or all on one page. Did you want to include modules too, or just supplements? A complete list would go a long way towards figuring out what we do and do not have covered here on WP already, and what needs to be added somewhere. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Spelljammer, thats the one I was trying to remember earlier and couldn't. I'd like to see it become all-encompassing. A big task but its useless if it isn't imo. Any ideas are welcome. Whatever the community thinks is best. I as thinking of modules/adventures being listed on the same page as the edition they were made for, in their own list. But if you've got a better idea let me know. If anyone knows of a good site with by-eidtion listing, please share. Hooper (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, if we update List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures with the pre-3.0 modules, that might hold. Maybe reword it on the template as "Adventure Modules from all Editions" or something so the average browser knows they are all collected there. Hooper (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my article compiling, I've been thinking about having pages for supplements but couldn't figure out how to sort them, but it makes sense to organize them by edition. There are a lot of stubs (like Complete Mage that could be merged into a list with other supplements. When you're done getting the basics set up, I could actually add links to my general template instead of having another separate navbox... it could pretty much replace the publications section. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If I can get a genius' help for a moment. I moved the template from my userspace to Template:D&D materials. Somehow the code is interferring with an old 3.x book template called D&D Books, and when I try to edit the current navbox, it takes me there. Anyone know how to solve this problem? Hooper (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Nevermind, figured it out. Hooper (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I just wanted to mention that I have plans to revise my general D&D template within the next week or so, and I'll incorporate the additional articles from your template. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone know a good ref site so I can get the Campaign-specific publication materials pages created? Hooper (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to get you this sooner: http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/index.htm :) BOZ (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
New WP:D&D Main Page Update
Hi! I just wanted to point out a few updates (you can see the entire idea page here):
-I've added a "Did you know..." section. -I've expanded the announcements section. -I've started work on a guide to the page to make it easier for newcomers to use and edit it. Work isn't done on it, but I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at what I have now and edit it where needed... I've found that it is difficult to write in that kind of style, so it might be kind of stilted as-is. Also, I have some editing hints there... I don't want it to sound like I'm saying that you can't edit anything unless it is discussed in the guide, but it's hard to tell whether it sounds like that or not when I'm writing it. That information is really meant to make it easier for newcomers and other users not used to templates to update the page with new DYN content, tasks, announcements, etc. -The watchlist has gotten quite a few updates. Feel free to add in any other articles you want.
-Drilnoth (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I think that everything's up and ready to go. If anyone thinks something should be added or changed before the new page is launched, please let me know. It may take an hour or two for me to get the new page up and running once I start, during which time the project page probably won't work quite right as I move pages, edit links, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of dark backgrounds myself, but then again I'm not a member of this WikiProject! :) When I teach web programming to my students, I typically tell them that black text on a white background, while perhaps not the most "exciting" thing, is very readable. White text on a black background gives me a headache if I read it for more than 5-10 minutes. While your proposal isn't that extreme, I think the black text on a (somewhat) dark background makes for more difficult reading. Your mileage may vary of course... --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I would suggest an overall white background, but if you want something to distinguish the section headers, I'd suggest black text on a (very lightly) colored background. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your point and will look into lightening the background... I think that some shading would be nice, because the page just looks more... well.. "Dungeony" if there's some grey to it, but I'll definetely see what I can do to lighten the color a little bit. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I would suggest an overall white background, but if you want something to distinguish the section headers, I'd suggest black text on a (very lightly) colored background. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of dark backgrounds myself, but then again I'm not a member of this WikiProject! :) When I teach web programming to my students, I typically tell them that black text on a white background, while perhaps not the most "exciting" thing, is very readable. White text on a black background gives me a headache if I read it for more than 5-10 minutes. While your proposal isn't that extreme, I think the black text on a (somewhat) dark background makes for more difficult reading. Your mileage may vary of course... --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done! How does that look? Link. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Much better! I'd still suggest a lighter color for the heading boxes, but that's much better than it was before. Of course you could always wait for other opinions than just mine. ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Much better! I'd still suggest a lighter color for the heading boxes, but that's much better than it was before. Of course you could always wait for other opinions than just mine. ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done! How does that look? Link. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Assessement Table
Does this get update automatically by bots, or is it manual? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the bots take care of that. They're a little slow at the moment though, because I think they haven't updated since October. I might be wrong though. BOZ (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, yes, if you look at the edit history, you'll see the last bot update was Oct 29. BOZ (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... I just created another two article classes (Project and Needed) and saw that they haven't been added in. Also, sometime soon I'm going to try and go through a bunch of articles and give them proper assessments... there seem to be a lot of unassessed articles and articles that still have, for example, an assessment of "Stub" even though they've been expanded. Would manually editing the page mess the bots up? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd wait to see if the bot picks it up on the next go-around. In theory, the bot is supposed to run every 3-6 days, so hopefully it won't be long now. If the next update is incomplete, someone from the 1.0 team should be notified. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Manually editing the templates on article talk pages is the intention, not manually editing the statistics page. You update the project template on a talk page as appropriate and, when the bots run next time around, they pick up on the changes and the statistics are automatically updated. As BOZ said, for whatever reason, the bots haven't run for a couple of weeks now, but should (at some point) do so. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's kind of what I thought. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just giving an update: I asked about the bot here, and at least one other user has reported a similar delay. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the index (or the first part of it at this link), checking random projects suggest that the bots haven't updated anything since Oct 27 or Oct 29, depending upon the particular project. I'm sure it's a temporary blip. Robots gotta play too, don't they (or their operators)? ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I just found out that the bot is, in fact, operating... it looks like it just hasn't gotten around to us for a while. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)- The bot has been fixed and did a run through yesterday. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great! I knew it would hit up sooner or later. :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The bot has been fixed and did a run through yesterday. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the index (or the first part of it at this link), checking random projects suggest that the bots haven't updated anything since Oct 27 or Oct 29, depending upon the particular project. I'm sure it's a temporary blip. Robots gotta play too, don't they (or their operators)? ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just giving an update: I asked about the bot here, and at least one other user has reported a similar delay. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's kind of what I thought. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Manually editing the templates on article talk pages is the intention, not manually editing the statistics page. You update the project template on a talk page as appropriate and, when the bots run next time around, they pick up on the changes and the statistics are automatically updated. As BOZ said, for whatever reason, the bots haven't run for a couple of weeks now, but should (at some point) do so. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd wait to see if the bot picks it up on the next go-around. In theory, the bot is supposed to run every 3-6 days, so hopefully it won't be long now. If the next update is incomplete, someone from the 1.0 team should be notified. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... I just created another two article classes (Project and Needed) and saw that they haven't been added in. Also, sometime soon I'm going to try and go through a bunch of articles and give them proper assessments... there seem to be a lot of unassessed articles and articles that still have, for example, an assessment of "Stub" even though they've been expanded. Would manually editing the page mess the bots up? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
LAUNCHING THE NEW MAIN PAGE
Okay, so I'm going to momentarily begin work on getting the new main page up and running. There will be an in-use tag at the top of the page itself, but subpages will not. As long as that tag remains, I request that you DO NOT edit the WP:D&D main page or any of its subpages because I'm going to be moving and editing the various pages and links. I anticipate that this process will take about an hour.
If you see something with the new page that needs to be addressed right away, leave me a note on my talk page, so that I see the "new messages" notice as soon as possible. Messages left here will probably not receive a response until the project is done. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the main launch is done. I'm still going to be going around to do some various maintenance that is still needed for it to be fully ready, but you can start editing things that you think need it. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The initial launch is now 100% complete. Although over the next week I hope to add some periphrials (some sort of D&D barnstar, more fan userboxes, etc.), everything should be ready to go. If you find any links that I missed the lead to my userspace, feel free to fix them or let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just fixed some more errors... as I said, there could be quite a few links to the set-up pages in my userspace for a little while. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The initial launch is now 100% complete. Although over the next week I hope to add some periphrials (some sort of D&D barnstar, more fan userboxes, etc.), everything should be ready to go. If you find any links that I missed the lead to my userspace, feel free to fix them or let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I obviously don't understand the structure of the new page (unsurprising to me, however) as I just tried to add something to the "major tasks" and can't figure out why it doesn't show up on the main page. Once things get to a certain level of complication, my tiny brain cannot compute... --Craw-daddy | T | 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... firstly I'd point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/guide, where I put some editing help for just that kind of situation. Secondly, I'll take a look and see if I can locate what you added. Thirdly, it seems like you've been helping out a fair bit recently... maybe you should consider officially joining the project? It doesn't really matter, just a suggestion. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found the trouble. Because the major tasks section is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/leftpanel, which is transcluded to the main page itself, the main page hadn't yet picked up your edit. When you edit any of the subpages that are transcluded to the main page, it might take some time for them to show up. Alternately, you can do a Null edit, and that should make your change appear. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance WikiProjects
Do you think that they should be merged into this one? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- They actually predate this project.
- That said, it might be worth discussing them becoming workgroups/task forces.
- See Template:WPCMC and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Workgroups for how WP:CMC handles work groups. - jc37 10:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know that they predate this project, but the FR project has basically been closed down, Greyhawk has started to stall, and Dragonlance looks like it's in the same position as this project... too few members. That's why I mentioned if they could become a part of this one. Workgroups might work, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The workgroup idea has promise. It's good for "side projects". BOZ (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. And it also allows for separate noticeboards/discussion pages, which can be watchlisted (to keep things semi-orderly), and separate (but merged) tagging and assessments, among other things. - jc37 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that tags, categories, and assessments should all be under one name... it seems like every Dragonlance article also has the D&D tag on the talk page, which just clutters up room. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Take a moment to check out the tags. Work group info is merged with WikiProject info... - jc37 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now that we're discussing it... I think someone started to help me set up the Greyhawk project as a workgroup a month or two ago. Maybe a dozen or so D&D articles have the Greyhawk workgroup on the talk page template before I got bored and did something else. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed... I hadn't noticed that Jc37. Thanks for pointing it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like the people who have expertise in one of these projects would have expertise for all of them, so merging makes some sense to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed... I hadn't noticed that Jc37. Thanks for pointing it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now that we're discussing it... I think someone started to help me set up the Greyhawk project as a workgroup a month or two ago. Maybe a dozen or so D&D articles have the Greyhawk workgroup on the talk page template before I got bored and did something else. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Take a moment to check out the tags. Work group info is merged with WikiProject info... - jc37 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that tags, categories, and assessments should all be under one name... it seems like every Dragonlance article also has the D&D tag on the talk page, which just clutters up room. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. And it also allows for separate noticeboards/discussion pages, which can be watchlisted (to keep things semi-orderly), and separate (but merged) tagging and assessments, among other things. - jc37 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Converting WikiProjects into task forces doesn't seem to improve the level of contribution, as far as I can tell. The primary use seems to be preservation of old discussions. I'm all for merging. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- See the modification I made on Talk:Al'Akbar. BOZ (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- That works, but I still think that just dissolving the setting-specific projects and using this one for all of them would make the most sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- While we are at it let's just dissolve this project and let the RPG project handle it. shadzar-talk 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Except that this project is still pretty active... just look at the public watchlist for all the recent changes. The three setting specific projects have pretty much ground to a halt... for example, look at the news section of Portal:Dragonlance. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I understand that Gavin, but there is also the fact that there is no time limit to do anything on wikipedia, and some times real world events may delay certain thigns from getting done and even may grind projects to a halt. Including but not limited to, economics, massive amounts of new information that must be digested to see if it may alter articles, jobs, etc. shadzar-talk 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not Gavin. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoo, identity crisis! :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it just seems all too similar to some things from the past. o.o;; Let's focus less on the other wikiprojects and like Boz, focus more on the articles and getting them fixed one at a time and not worry with tagging and such. If we are all the ones left doing anything, then the time to fix one article at a time will be enough and in time all things will come in line on their own. Heck Boz even got me to edit the WotC article against my will by including a typo in it, knowing I often fix typos as I read articles! shadzar-talk 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ooooo weeeee ooooo... MIND-TAKING! ;) Seriously though, I think Shadzar, like me, is probably just a war-weary veteran, and subject to friendly fire once in awhile. ;) I agree with Shadzar on where our focus should lie, though. Drilnoth has been doing an excellent job so far in my opinion, and let's keep going in the direction we've been heading. If we can attract more people to this project, then the sub-projects may just get started again (you never know) so closing them now seems premature. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not Gavin. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I understand that Gavin, but there is also the fact that there is no time limit to do anything on wikipedia, and some times real world events may delay certain thigns from getting done and even may grind projects to a halt. Including but not limited to, economics, massive amounts of new information that must be digested to see if it may alter articles, jobs, etc. shadzar-talk 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Except that this project is still pretty active... just look at the public watchlist for all the recent changes. The three setting specific projects have pretty much ground to a halt... for example, look at the news section of Portal:Dragonlance. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- While we are at it let's just dissolve this project and let the RPG project handle it. shadzar-talk 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- That works, but I still think that just dissolving the setting-specific projects and using this one for all of them would make the most sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- See the modification I made on Talk:Al'Akbar. BOZ (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The workgroup idea has promise. It's good for "side projects". BOZ (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know that they predate this project, but the FR project has basically been closed down, Greyhawk has started to stall, and Dragonlance looks like it's in the same position as this project... too few members. That's why I mentioned if they could become a part of this one. Workgroups might work, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-I hadn't thought of that, BOZ, and thanks for the compliment. I know I haven't been modifying actual articles much lately... I've really been trying to get the public watchlist completed, and it's already been immensely useful to me for identifying problem pages and such. I'm just about to start going on an assessment drive to look at all of the D&D articles and give them proper assessments, and then I hope to start working on the tags... one article at a time. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Even if we don't merge the projects, should I add pages from other projects, such as WP:Dragonlance templates, into the public watchlist? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. :) BOZ (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought so, but I wanted to make sure. I'll start working on that.
- When I have time. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Changes to Kender
A massive amount of text in the article Kender has recently been modified. Could someone who knows more about the race then myself take a look at it? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kender I stopped bothering with that and any other article he got involved with long ago. I don't have the time to work on Gavinpedia. I come here to work on Wikipedia. So whatever changes were made are probably just because mediation was given up because nobody had time to devote to it except for one, so nothing was getting done lately about it. So it will likely just become an edit war to even bother with the Kender article. shadzar-talk 12:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Kender has been "Gavinized" and will likely remain that way. The version we came up with during the mediation was mostly to see what sort of writing would placate Gavin; I was never particularly fond of the results. In fact, Gavin originally wanted most/all of the writing to be quoted from sources, because any rewriting or paraphrasing is apparently POV reinterpretation by the editor, or synthesis, or OR, or whatever he's fond of calling something at the time. He wanted the whole thing rewritten from scratch, and that's what he's got. You can try editing it, but good luck with that. :) We started off with about 5 people in the mediation, and they dropped off one by one for various reasons... eventually it was just Gavin and me, and even Gavin started appearing more and more sporadically. At one point, I just posted my thoughts on one section, and there was never a response (even after I kept pointing to it), so I never did anything more and the case stalled, even after we tried to get more people involved. In reality, the best thing the mediation case did was to get Gavin to leave us alone for 6 months (after his 6 month reign of terror) so that we could actually get something positive done instead of fighting with him all the time! BOZ (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Boz should be proud of his contribution to the article, as it is as much his hard work that resulted in a huge improvement in its quality as anyone else's. As at today, I am pleased that the unsourced content has been removed, and the over reliance on in universe perspective that blighted the article has been reduced substantially, and it is a lot more interesting to read about the real-world development of the characters as a result. Only the notability of the subject is still doubtful. However, I still think it is one of the better Dragonlance articles on Wikipedia: most of the others are in poor shape. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying it hasn't been improved; in fact, you are correct that the in-universe text has been mostly or entirely eliminated, and the article is properly cited as well. The article as it originally existed was no great shakes. I do agree that most D&D articles (and most fiction articles in general) do still suffer from lack of citations and overuse of in-universe text; if I learned anything particularly important from the mediation, those are two things that I have been hard at work trying to fix since then. (I got two articles to "Good Article" status within the last month!) Regarding the writing on Kender, I felt particularly constrained by Gavin's approach, and I feel that I did the best I could under those conditions, rather than doing the best I could have done if working unrestrained. Thus, my criticism of the final results you now see in the article. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- On a related note, someone who knows more about this than I do should deal with the copyright issue raised here? Also, the fair use rationales should be updated, in particular there's really supposed to be one for each article in which the image is used (although, they're typically nearly identical, there are supposed to be one for each use). --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- On the bright side, Gavin hasn't started tagging articles again... the only D&D pages he's really modified recently, to my knoweldge, are Dan Willis and Kender. This is good, because if we just have enough time I think that we can clean up most every D&D article there is, but that probably won't happen if tags are constantly being added (sometimes for good reason, although sometimes they seem rather arbitrary and random). I also think that the
{{notability}}tag could be replaced in many articles with{{primarysources}}, since that doesn't have the "veiled threat of deletion" as I heard one user call it, so it would give us some more time to clean the article up. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - I don't know a thing about putting picture on wikipedia, unless it is still-life and you took the picture yourself. shadzar-talk 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've added copyright information to the image and removed the tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there are any objections, I plan to start replacing
{{notability}}tags with the{{importance}}and/or{{primarysources}}tags, because those are not automatic criteria for the deletion of an article if the issue isn't dealt with fast enough. This will allow the WikiProject more time to cleanup the relevant articles without feeling rushed or hopeless. If there are objections they can be discussed here and the proper course of action can be determined by the whole group. Note that if I do start doing this, I will specifically not remove any{{notability}}tags without either modifying the page to make such a tag unnecessary or replacing the tag with one or both of the substitutes. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there are any objections, I plan to start replacing
- I've added copyright information to the image and removed the tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- On the bright side, Gavin hasn't started tagging articles again... the only D&D pages he's really modified recently, to my knoweldge, are Dan Willis and Kender. This is good, because if we just have enough time I think that we can clean up most every D&D article there is, but that probably won't happen if tags are constantly being added (sometimes for good reason, although sometimes they seem rather arbitrary and random). I also think that the
- On a related note, someone who knows more about this than I do should deal with the copyright issue raised here? Also, the fair use rationales should be updated, in particular there's really supposed to be one for each article in which the image is used (although, they're typically nearly identical, there are supposed to be one for each use). --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Kender has been "Gavinized" and will likely remain that way. The version we came up with during the mediation was mostly to see what sort of writing would placate Gavin; I was never particularly fond of the results. In fact, Gavin originally wanted most/all of the writing to be quoted from sources, because any rewriting or paraphrasing is apparently POV reinterpretation by the editor, or synthesis, or OR, or whatever he's fond of calling something at the time. He wanted the whole thing rewritten from scratch, and that's what he's got. You can try editing it, but good luck with that. :) We started off with about 5 people in the mediation, and they dropped off one by one for various reasons... eventually it was just Gavin and me, and even Gavin started appearing more and more sporadically. At one point, I just posted my thoughts on one section, and there was never a response (even after I kept pointing to it), so I never did anything more and the case stalled, even after we tried to get more people involved. In reality, the best thing the mediation case did was to get Gavin to leave us alone for 6 months (after his 6 month reign of terror) so that we could actually get something positive done instead of fighting with him all the time! BOZ (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
