Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Some suggestions

New to any Wiki questions or inputs, so apologize for any protocol breaches. Specific suggestions all geared toward helping people understand the full history and flexibility of D&D. Some obviously trivial. 1) After mentioning Greyhawk and Blackmoor as "supplements" please add Eldritch Wizardry as Supplement III. I'm not aware of any other true official "supplements" to the original set. If so would love to know what they were. Seems the list could be complete for official TSR supplements at least. 2) The history relating to Chainmail seems right on the mark. Why not mention somewhere the extrapolation for the D&D world for miniatures captured in Swords & Spells also by Gygax in 1976? Many early DM's, once players reached high levels, would allow for some major army type battles and this was a great addition to the suggested approaches. 3) Didn't see any mention of The Spartan Simulation Gaming Journal volume no. 9 Aug 1975. I know there is a reference to many fanzines and maybe none should be mentioned without listing many of them but this issue featuring "Warlock" was one of the best early additions to the basic rule set and is an example of my fourth point or request. 4) Somehow the original flexibility and individual world creation of D&D doesn't seem to be coming across. The published rules were a suggested set which allowed a DM to create their own world from scratch along with their own specific rules to match. Everyone I know who played starting in 1974 had friends who created their own worlds and adapted rules from the original 3 volumes, the 3 supplements, Dragon, and The Spartan: Warlock. When AD&D came out myself and all my DM friends simply borrowed a few more things from the new publications but never adapted any part of a published world/campaign nor any of the new rules as a complete set. Our worlds were already deviations from any others and were never brought in line to match new publications. Everyone today seems used to a mass produced world, but in 1974 you created your own and half the fun was having your own world for friends to play in.

Just some suggestions. 69.1.15.89 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Just saw and was reminded of Gods, Demi-gods and Heroes. Didn't realize it was officially a supplement, #4, can't find my copy. But would still like the main article to point them all out or clearly link to the list. 69.1.15.89 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1020 articles are assigned to this project, of which 458, or 44.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lathander

Lathander has been nominated for deletion. If there is anything you can do to improve the article so that it may be kept (or at least turned into a redirect), please do so.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A good source for info

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540509p1.html - this looks like it will help out a lot. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

Hmm, after all that work we put into it, they're trying to bring it down... The List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters‎ is up as well, and faring badly at first. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

D&D tagging protocols

I am not sure if this has been discussed. If it has, my apologies.

I see a disproportionate amount of tags placed on D&D articles, relative to other fiction/fantasy articles. While I understand the need for some of the tags, like the no footnotes (although these articles sometimes are chock full of footnotes and cites and still tagged) I find others a bit bewildering. The inuniverse tag is the one that really gets to me. When an article is labeled (Dungeons and Dragons) due to another entry for real world relevance, I find it redundant to add the inuniverse tag. I am removing it when I do see it and there is a separate entry outside of D&D. I mean of course it is referring to the in universe character it clearly says so with parentheses right next to the entry, but one look at the publication history will demonstrate that these articles take great pains to delineate real world history. The second tag I am bothered by is the cleanup tag, when it conflicts with the standards set up by the wikiproject. Sometimes it is asking for a clearer introduction, tying real world relevance and publication, when it has been decided that publication history will have its own section. When I feel that it is inappropriate I will be removing those two tags. If the members of this wikiproject feel that I am wrong in doing so, let me know and I will stop, I simply find some of these tags, redundant, nonsensical, and inappropriate.

I also feel that these tags should be placed in there appropriate sections rather than all of them being put, wholesale at the beginning of the article. As a wikiproject when, noteworthiness has been firmly established could we come to a consensus about putting overview tags at the bottom of the article rather than littering the top, since almost every article has been tagged? And placing citation tags where appropriate rather than brainlessly mass tagging articles? I mean almost every article in the wikipedia can be tagged with several tags, semi legitimately, I really don't think that was the purpose in establishing the template tags. --Zenbabyhead (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the tags you see were probably not placed by members of the D&D WikiProject. BOZ (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Identify an article to which you do not think the tags apply and lets discuss it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of putting disambiguation in parentheses after an article title. It does not give editors carte blanche to write an article from the perspective of the D&D universe. All D&D articles should approach their subject from the perspective of the real world and include only that information which is relevant from the outside - most don't, because it's easy for fans of the game to forget this guideline or ignore it because of the restrictions it places on article content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I've noted in some of the in-universe tags (which isn't related to whether or not these tags are appropriate) is that some things such as deities who have been featured through several editions, and as such have a lot of background information, are identified as "stock characters" - that seems pretty POV, especially since such a description also implies a lack of notability. --Muna (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is an accurate description of a Non-player character in the absence of real-world information. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. A stock character is generally a one-dimensional character who relies on the reader's knowledge of stereotypes as a vehicle. A stock character usually has an ill-defined backstory and agenda, and are rarely given much attention after their first appearance. Zagyg, for example, is a character you labelled as a stock character, though the character has appeared in several publications over a course of more than 20 years, and is quite important with regard to the Greyhawk setting - definitely not a stock character. --Muna (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of {{FreeContentMeta}}

{{FreeContentMeta}}, which is used in the {{Forgotten Realms Wikia}} template, is under discussion. Please see template talk:FreeContentMeta#Inline or floating to participate in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate "core classes", replace with "standard classes"

IMO we should stop using the term "core classes" in articles, instead using "standard classes" to avoid ambiguity regarding the entire 4e PHB series' tentative status as core rulebooks and the fact that "core" can mean either refer to the core rulebooks or all D&D products which are not campaign-specific. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Torm

I've done some work to this article in an attempt to remove the in-universe tone, though I am finding it difficult to rewrite the paragraph in the history and relationships section which deals with Torm's history. If anyone could help me with finding sources to cite or advise me regarding rewriting the article in order to discuss the subject in an out-universe style and establish the notability of the subject, it would be greatly appreciated. :) --Muna (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Need a drone? :)

While I'm not a member of this wikiproject (I'm not sure I'd want to be, either, since I'm quite eclectic when it comes to editing, so I never know if I'll be able to stick with something), I saw the note about adding the deities template on the project page, and since there's a lot of them untagged, decided to add them. I've got through somewhere around a hundred and fifty so far from the Greyhawk list, making a few cleanups as I go. I've noticed there seems to be a lot of articles with tags which don't seem particularly appropriate, which look like they've been added without looking at the articles...I don't know what needs doing there, so I think the only thing I've removed was a stub tag on a page which clearly wasn't one. If there are any other things that need doing en masse such as article tags, I'd be happy to oblige - I played a grind-heavy MMO for three years or so, so I'm used to highly repetitive tasks. ;) --Muna (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've noticed there seems to be a lot of articles with tags which don't seem particularly appropriate, which look like they've been added without looking at the articles" - you're not the first person to make that observation.  ;) See the #D&D tagging protocols section above for the most recent and that will give you a clue. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Homer & Bunnies!

Yah, you are probably wondering. Why did I just bring up Homer Simpson in a the D&D Wikiproject? It is simple. It is a perfect example on how an article on a fictional individual be written to be considered for FA status. I propose that we all take a good look at this article, and consider the possibility of truly updating the collection of articles we have to this level of quality.

In other news, Bunnies & Burrows is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. After it completes the review, I will be submitting it for peer review, then the final coup de grace, featured article status. Would love all your input. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you success!  :) Note that I also brought up the Troy McClure FA on this page some time ago for the same reasons... BOZ (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting D&D Pages

Does anyone agree with me in thinking it would easier to format D&D Articles by listing the most current information first and then describing older information in a type of history section? Because 4ed is so different, it would provide us with the most pertinent (most pertinent because 4ed is going to be the only edition actively published) while being able to see how the individual topics have evolved over the years? MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That 4E is so new is a reason it should be given less prominence in articles, not more. Articles should concentrate on the most noteworthy material first, which is usually the stuff which has most coverage in reliable sources. For D&D articles, where notability is often thin on the ground in the first place, it is important that the article uses well-referenced material as a base. This primarily comes from the weight of coverage given to previous incarnations of the article subjects. Remember - it's not just current D&D gamers that articles are being written for. Given that 4E deliberately simplifies the rules substantially in many areas, it may be that subjects which were very important in previous games (magic, for instance) are always going to concentrate more on earlier editions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, each edition of the game is it's own version of the game and the mythology and mechanics behind it are completely different from edition to edition. Because they ARE publishing 4th edition now and are NO LONGER publishing anything from previous sources. I'm not saying that the information from prior editions should not be covered, or not be given the prominence they deserve, but because they are out of date they should be presented as history and not as current information as it is no longer current. MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen Beetle. Sometimes the history is considerably more important than the current incarnation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of personal preferences, it makes the most sense to list information in chronological print order to establish a proper history, as I have tried to do at Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, my apologies for not responding to MightyMonkeyToe's notes on my talk page; for some reason, the function that alerts me to new messages is not currently working. Regardless, I think I have made my point clear here. We should absolutely cover 4E on Wikipedia, but not as the first, not as the most important, and definitely not as the only version that matters. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello.  :) If it helps, since June I've been adding publication histories to D&D articles, to frame them in a historically accurate sense, and to provide all the sources these game elements have appeared in, and to add at least one "out-of-universe" section of (hopefully) only matter-of-fact information. You can see what I did on Orcus as an example. For a long time, it seemed like most D&D articles on Wikipedia were written from a 3E-heavy perspective, and now they are starting to shift to a 4E-heavy perspective, when really neither is correct; all editions should get equal treatment in regards to their relevance to the subject. I was planning on getting around to the demon article eventually, but there are so many demons to track down and I have been lazy on that.  ;) Maybe I'll work on that over the weekend! BOZ (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's relevant to point to WP:Recentism (which, admittedly, might deal more with news and such, but highlights that you shouldn't necessarily focus on what has most recently received the most attention). --Craw-daddy | T | 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not trying to suggest that 4 edition is the most important edition of the game, but it is the current one. Noting thing in chronological order IS important when the order of the series is related. HOWEVER, each edition of Dungeons and Dragons is a NEW incarnation of the game, and, though it often keeps much of the same material, it is not an extension of D&D 3.5 or any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons. 4th edition is the only version of the game currently in print and in essence it IS Dungeons and Dragons now. It's succesors are just that. They are indefinately a part of the evolution of the game, and I am not saying any of it should be deleted, but it should be told as the HISTORY of the game. MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By insisting on placing it first, and relegating the rest to being "just history", because 4E is the "ONLY edition in print", that adds up to you suggesting that 4th edition is the most important version of the game. However, I'm not going to edit war over this, or "muck with" what you've done anymore. If others feel it is important, I will leave it to them. Craw-Daddy pointing to Wikipedia:Recentism is exactly right in this case. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Craw-daddy is not exactly right. The argument over recentism pertains more to current news over past events, or long standing historical events being written about in contemporary terms. The problem we're facing, I think, is the fact that each edition IS different and to try to lump them all together is confusing. When you look up I Am Legend it brings you to the original version of the Novel written by Richard Matheson. They mention all the adaptations but each adaptation has its own individual page. Perhaps we should do something like that for Dungeons and Dragons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMonkeyToe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough coverage in independent sources to justify that. It would make sense if an article were getting too large, but that is infrequent in D&D articles which aren't full of fancruft. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case then, I fully believe that 4th edition information should come first on the basis that the 4th edition of the game is the CURRENT incarnation of the game. This is NOT recentism because 4th edition is in fact a stand alone game and does not build off or continue previously written material. In essence DnD 4th edition IS DnD. Past editions are just that, PAST editions. MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That may all be true from your perspective, though others may see it differently. Some would say the game's rich, extensive history is as important as, if not more important than, a new version which has just come into existence. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my comment up-thread. Current != most important. In the case of many D&D staples (magic, for instance), past editions are considerably more important. Articles are written to provide comprehensive coverage of a subject in its entirety, not just to detail the status quo and to tack on an "old stuff" section for the rest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Never once has any of my posts said that 4th edition is "the most important." Nor did I ever say that the history of the game was not important either. That, however, does not change the fact that 4th Edition DnD IS the new DnD. An article designated simply as (D&D) should address the game. And since 4ed release, 4ed IS the game. Many may still play the older versions, but Wizard is focused on 4ed now. Even the main Dungeons and Dragons Article details the 4th Edition when speaking about things like game mechanics. By your arguments, the article should be edited to discuss the game mechanics of ALL the games before it discusses the game mechanics of DnD 4th edition. MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. 4E is not "The game" in any sense other than that WOTC aren't selling any other versions of it right now. If an article is discussing current rules, then using the current edition as a frame of reference is sensible. But in general, the current edition is to be assigned only appropriate weight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it should be rewritten in just that way, if it is not written that way already. Wizards is focused on 4E because that's the only edition they're making money on. If they were to release a "classic edition" type of thing that started selling as well as or better than 4E, then guess where they'd be focusing? But Wikipedia does not care what the publisher is focusing on or making money on (quite possibly the opposite); it more concerned about presenting information from a neutral point of view. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes it DOES mean that 4E is "THE GAME". Unfortunately, this whole argument is on a POV basis. I believe that the game is in essence the most recent incarnation, and the two of you believe that the articles should be represented in chronological order. None of my edits or posts say that 4e is superior to or more important than other editions of the game. Those are disillusions imagined by the both of you. 4e HAS appropriate weight attributed to it, and I write from a Nuetral Point of View. Your arguments are simply about the formatting of the pages. It is my belief that, if the main page is going to address the game overview and mechanics from the 4e perpesctive, then articles written about specific aspects of the game should be written the same way in the interest of uniformity. MightyMonkeyToe (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're reading things into our arguments that we haven't said. I encourage you to take some time to read through the appropriate policies (and a decent sample of articles) before continuing this way. I've got nearly 30,000 edits under my belt, so please try to assume that I know what I'm talking about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WotC does sell othe versions of the game (in eBook format) through vendors like RPGNow, so even to WotC it is not "The Game". It is the current "official" version, but other editions are not out of print, and therefore should carry equal weight in the article. --BizMgr (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, then. I decided to reread the Dungeons & Dragons article, to see what you have been talking about. I fail to see how this page addresses the game overview and mechanics from the 4E perspective. Each section seems to be written in one of two ways, either "this is how this went in this edition, then this edition, then this edition" or "this is pretty much the way this aspect has been in every edition, with a few key differences noted". If you think that the main article is written from a 4E perspective, then I submit that you probably just don't know much about the previous editions. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)