Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Automatic archiving
Do we have it? Should we turn it on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can get it set up within the next few days. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- How does eight minutes sound? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fine with me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Eight minutes before a thread gets archived? Well, that's hardly enough time for people to respond. ;) Better have some quick conversations around here! :) Seriously though, what is the best amount of time before archiving, 30 days? BOZ (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- He set it at 31, which I think is good for this page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Eight minutes before a thread gets archived? Well, that's hardly enough time for people to respond. ;) Better have some quick conversations around here! :) Seriously though, what is the best amount of time before archiving, 30 days? BOZ (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fine with me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- How does eight minutes sound? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
New task force
I've gone ahead and created a task force for D&D video games under WP:VG. If you're interested, head over and sign up. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Slightly off topic, but the WP:VG is a little backlogged with its peer reviews and good article nominations. Any of these could use a fresh pair of eyes who might not work so closely with the video games project. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Delisted Dice as GA
Per Talk:Dice/GA1. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay; thanks for letting us know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect-Class
Having just redirected (without merging) Barghest (Dungeons & Dragons) after is was prodded, I was wondering if we should more firmly establish what Redirect-Class is in the project. I think that it has been discussed before that this class could be used for all D&D-related articles which are redirected without being merged. I feel that this would be a good way to track such articles so that they can be merged at a later date. If there is consensus for this, then, I'll go through Category:Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles and properly reassess those which were merged to Merge-Class and delete those which have no non-redirect history under G6, linking to the discussion. Then we'd know what hasn't been merged. Your thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to do it sooner or later (read: later), but feel free to beat me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay; I'll just start working on it whenever I have some spare time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- And when will you actually have spare time? ;) Work on Dave Arneson first! :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- A good question. :) Anyway, I'll do some work on Arneson's page now and finish tomorrow (I was going to do it all today, but some other things came up which I hadn't known about). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'm about to turn in, so I won't be slowing you down. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- A good question. :) Anyway, I'll do some work on Arneson's page now and finish tomorrow (I was going to do it all today, but some other things came up which I hadn't known about). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- And when will you actually have spare time? ;) Work on Dave Arneson first! :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay; I'll just start working on it whenever I have some spare time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Media inspired by D&D
How does that sound for a category? I'm thinking stuff like Futurama: Bender's Game, which I just recently added to the project. It would need some defining. For example, Bender's Game mentions the game's name several times, shows characters playing D&D sessions in a few different scenes, and the entire plot involving Bender stems directly from his involement in D&D. Pretty solid case. :)
I'd say Anthology of Interest I (the one with Gygax in it) would not be an article for the D&D project. While D&D is mentioned, and Gygax is in there, D&D is more of a gag than anything integral to the plot, unlike Bender's Game.
To be included, I'd say something has to have a source stating that D&D inspired the product directly. Dungeons & Dragons (album), an FA, is obvious, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) is probably the most notable as a media adaptation. There's a few other likely items hanging out in Category:Dungeons & Dragons. The Order of the Stick would probably work, although a lot of other similar strips might not (general fantasy would be out, it's gotta be D&D related). Mazes and Monsters is iffy, because I don't think D&D is mentioned by name (Fry, didn't you see the after-school special!) as that was about RPGs in general, and probably didn't mention D&D by name to avoid a lawsuit. Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games would possibly be a child category, so no need to lump them all in there. He Poos Clouds is an interesting one. ;) You also have things like Wishmaster (album), and we could possibly put the band Kyuss in the category but I wouldn't add them to the D&D project.
So, I don't know, just thinking out loud, let me know what you think. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Two things. Inclusion would have to be decided by RSs, and maybe a list page would be better (I don't know). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Inclusion based on reliable sources seems fair. Mazes and Monsters should probably be in the project; I'm sure that most discussions of the film mention it's relation to D&D (when I watched it, it seemed pretty obvious that it refers to D&D specifically more than RPGs in general). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant RS's, but I didn't make that clear. If the product itself is derivative by explicitly mentioning or being connected to the game (the D&D movies, D&D cartoon, etc) then I think we can make a leap of faith. :) So, good idea, bad idea? BOZ (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds a little on the fluffy side. No offense, of course. There will probably be somebody who wants information of that nature, so it makes sense. However, cultural topics tend to be the focus of anti-trivia campaigns, so a strong inclusion criteria is essential.—RJH (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- None taken - if I was more sure that it was the right thing to do, I would have just done it rather than brought it to discussion. Should we include Vecna technologies? ;) I'd like to better hash out what would and would not be involved in this category. We have any media products which have reliable sources linking their inspiration to the D&D game in part or in whole - I think that's a good place to start. What else? BOZ (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Like with the video games, I wouldn't include actual novels. Of course, bringing up a valid point with the DL cartoon I just mention, maybe adaptations and "works inspired by" are two totally different things. I'm starting to think maybe a list would be better after all? Needn't necessarily be a separate article if we can find somewhere else to list it under. BOZ (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the deletionist archetypes tend to prefer categories to lists. I don't think it would hurt to include both types of articles in the same category. It can always be split into sub-categories later.—RJH (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds a little on the fluffy side. No offense, of course. There will probably be somebody who wants information of that nature, so it makes sense. However, cultural topics tend to be the focus of anti-trivia campaigns, so a strong inclusion criteria is essential.—RJH (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant RS's, but I didn't make that clear. If the product itself is derivative by explicitly mentioning or being connected to the game (the D&D movies, D&D cartoon, etc) then I think we can make a leap of faith. :) So, good idea, bad idea? BOZ (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Inclusion based on reliable sources seems fair. Mazes and Monsters should probably be in the project; I'm sure that most discussions of the film mention it's relation to D&D (when I watched it, it seemed pretty obvious that it refers to D&D specifically more than RPGs in general). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Article quality assessment scheme update needed
Now that Drizzt Do'Urden is GA, it's no longer an example for C Class. Monster Manual is now C Class, not B Class, and Ravenloft is not actually A Class. One could either use the old versions of the articles when they were added (for example Drizzt Do'Urden and Monster Manual) or choose new ones. I'm for the latter. Hekerui (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh... thanks for mentioning this! I'd forgotten about the need to update that list. I'll do so shortly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Things have changed so much recently that we have forgotten to update it, like Drilnoth says. If I had the time, I'd really spruce it up, but, eh. :\ BOZ (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Umber hulk
What's up with this? :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Jean-Paul Sartre said it best, "Hell is other people." Unfortunately, dealing with less than pleasant individuals is one of the demotivational aspects of Wikipedia. I just try to take breaks from WP from time to time; it helps to take the edge off.—RJH (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep; I feel that's the reason the D&D WikiProject lost just about everyone in late 2007/early 2008 (IYKWIMAITYD). Some left Wikipedia altogether, some just chose not to edit anything in this subject area. Shame, and I have tried hard to lobby some of them to come back with little success. BOZ (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, at least there's a handful of us here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, which is why I do as best as I can (even when running at limited capacity) to keep things going; a few people do come back from time to time, and sometimes new people come around as well, plus we have perennial favorites such as Peregrine Fisher and RJ Hall. :) Always good to have you guys still with us. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. My sympathies exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the positive side, there's always fresh blood coming into WP that can help fill the ranks of the departed. For the most part I wouldn't worry too much about people leaving. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. My sympathies exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, which is why I do as best as I can (even when running at limited capacity) to keep things going; a few people do come back from time to time, and sometimes new people come around as well, plus we have perennial favorites such as Peregrine Fisher and RJ Hall. :) Always good to have you guys still with us. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, at least there's a handful of us here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep; I feel that's the reason the D&D WikiProject lost just about everyone in late 2007/early 2008 (IYKWIMAITYD). Some left Wikipedia altogether, some just chose not to edit anything in this subject area. Shame, and I have tried hard to lobby some of them to come back with little success. BOZ (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Interviews
Awesome index. Used it to spruce up Kim Mohan already. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great list! It's nice to have access to the old issues. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Got Warren Spector, "Zeb" Cook, Jeff Easley, and Roger E. Moore also. I'm skipping some of the better-developed bios though; I think these five look a lot better now, more fleshed out and better sourced. I'm going to get Clyde Caldwell and Michael Dobson as well as I go through my old issues. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! Those do look better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- 'Tis a pity Erol Otus is not there. I was intrigued by how elusive reliable sources were for Erol. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! Those do look better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Got Warren Spector, "Zeb" Cook, Jeff Easley, and Roger E. Moore also. I'm skipping some of the better-developed bios though; I think these five look a lot better now, more fleshed out and better sourced. I'm going to get Clyde Caldwell and Michael Dobson as well as I go through my old issues. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the peer reviews have just about run their course. Should we shoot for A-class? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- No reason not to; honestly I think that it could pass FAC, but it never hurts to have more eyes first. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after the few FA's I've been involved with I'd prefer to assume nothing about what we can accomplish, but we can always give it the ol' college try and see what we can do. :) BOZ (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- K, I'll put it up for A-class. My only real concern in the Gameplay section; it's not strictly neutral in my opinion. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after the few FA's I've been involved with I'd prefer to assume nothing about what we can accomplish, but we can always give it the ol' college try and see what we can do. :) BOZ (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A-class isn't going anywhere. Should we try FAC? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did we get a peer review and address any concerns brought up? I'd say give it a rip! BOZ (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let's go! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, it's up. I added your names as nominators; remove them if you're not comfortable with that. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I suppose that's fine. BOZ (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, it's up. I added your names as nominators; remove them if you're not comfortable with that. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let's go! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! It's a Featured Article now. :) Excellent work, everyone! BOZ (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to step out of my semi-wikibreak for a few moments so that I can say: SWEET! That is awesome. Now, shall we aim for its being on the main page in December? (10 years since the release...) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Dang, now we only have 19 GAs again... :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, see what I posted about the NWN2 series and we can remedy that. ;) As to getting Torment on the main page, I was thinking that as well and thought that new FAs have a tough time getting to the main page, but since you point out that it's the 10-year anniversary of the release (and it would be my birthday!) that acutally makes it a lot more likely to make it. :) We'll have to remember in about 5-6 months to request it. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I don't have much time right at the moment because of Real Life™, but when I have a chance I'll be working more on some articles here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Take your time, there's no rush. :) BOZ (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I don't have much time right at the moment because of Real Life™, but when I have a chance I'll be working more on some articles here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, see what I posted about the NWN2 series and we can remedy that. ;) As to getting Torment on the main page, I was thinking that as well and thought that new FAs have a tough time getting to the main page, but since you point out that it's the 10-year anniversary of the release (and it would be my birthday!) that acutally makes it a lot more likely to make it. :) We'll have to remember in about 5-6 months to request it. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Dang, now we only have 19 GAs again... :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this article promoted to featured article status. I know what a tough slog that can be. One of these days I'll actually finish up the game. :-) RJH (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just about finished. Could someone take a look at it and fix any glaring problems? The only main thing I couldn't include was an explanation of the "silver shards" in Plot. I played the game, but it was a few years ago and I've forgotten their significance. Also, I think Gameplay is adequate, but it may need attention from a D&D expert. Finally, feel free to remove the cleanup tags at the top of the article if you feel they are no longer required. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll try to give it a spellcheck and copyedit today. Great work so far! :) BOZ (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did a little. :) How about the tags at the top of the page? The plot no longer seems overlong. How about the references, are they good now? BOZ (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that those issues have been fixed. I've removed the tags and reassessed the article to B-Class. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we had already made it a B, unless I'm misremembering taking it to C instead. ;) How far is is from a GA-nom? BOZ (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole thing since the Vantine's updates, but I think its probably about ready. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we had already made it a B, unless I'm misremembering taking it to C instead. ;) How far is is from a GA-nom? BOZ (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that those issues have been fixed. I've removed the tags and reassessed the article to B-Class. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did a little. :) How about the tags at the top of the page? The plot no longer seems overlong. How about the references, are they good now? BOZ (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the lead needs expansion (when doesn't it?). I don't see summaries of the gameplay and devolopment sections. Looks plenty good for a GA nom. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did someone say a lead need work? :) Well that's my specialty - give me a few hours and I'll be able to get something together. I'll nominate it whenever I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great, folks. What else still needs to be done? Is it just a matter of improving the grammar and phrasing? Or are there any parts of the article that could use some more thorough research/coverage? Randomran (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Randomran also mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources to me on my talk page; might want to have a look there (assuming you haven't already). BOZ (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did some copy-editing and added some sources. Someone who is more familiar with the characters and setting of the series might have more luck tracking down information to verify guys like Ammon Jerro being an antagonist. (I can't find more than stuff that verifies his existence). Give it your best shot, and if there's anything left at the end that still needs citation, I can take another look. I'm pretty good with the research stuff. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Randomran also mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources to me on my talk page; might want to have a look there (assuming you haven't already). BOZ (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great, folks. What else still needs to be done? Is it just a matter of improving the grammar and phrasing? Or are there any parts of the article that could use some more thorough research/coverage? Randomran (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Great work, all, it's a GA now. :) BOZ (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring this article to the project's attention. It's a newly created article, and as it stands now, the article is pretty much deletion fodder, but if notoriety equals notability there may be something to salvage there. McJeff (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is indeed a fine candidate for a removal by a +1 template of prodding (WP:PROD).—RJH (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia just doesn't just cover games which are successful or critically acclaimed, and video games notable for negative reception include links to many articles on games which are notable primarily for critical condemnation and / or commercial failure, and list of films considered the worst contains links to articles on movies notable for the same reason. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- True, but in this case irrelevant. An article has to satisfy the wikipedia notability guidelines in order to survive AfD. This article cites only the author as a source and I found nothing on the internet to demonstrate that this possesses any notability. It is unclear how to distinguish this from a work of pure fiction. Ergo it remains highly PROD-able.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are people on this wikiproject with access to off-internet sources. (I am not one of them, which is why I dropped off the project, I wasn't able to contribute anything.) But if FATAL got written up, or especially called out on its general awfulness in a magazine review, that would demonstrate notability. McJeff (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll check The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible when I have a chance today or tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Given the current condition of the article, at some point it is highly likely to be Prod'd or RfD'd. I'm going to tag it with the
unreferencedPrimary sources template now in the (unfortunately somewhat unlikely) hope the issue will be addressed before that time. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)- No luck with the FRPG... presumably because F.A.T.A.L was published 5 years after the book came out. :/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are people on this wikiproject with access to off-internet sources. (I am not one of them, which is why I dropped off the project, I wasn't able to contribute anything.) But if FATAL got written up, or especially called out on its general awfulness in a magazine review, that would demonstrate notability. McJeff (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- True, but in this case irrelevant. An article has to satisfy the wikipedia notability guidelines in order to survive AfD. This article cites only the author as a source and I found nothing on the internet to demonstrate that this possesses any notability. It is unclear how to distinguish this from a work of pure fiction. Ergo it remains highly PROD-able.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia just doesn't just cover games which are successful or critically acclaimed, and video games notable for negative reception include links to many articles on games which are notable primarily for critical condemnation and / or commercial failure, and list of films considered the worst contains links to articles on movies notable for the same reason. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. It looks like "Worst roleplaying game ever written" has already been Prod'd as a PoV essay.—RJH (talk)
- No argument about that from me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Quote: "Early roleplaying games (from the late 970s and early 1980s) often fall into this category". Cool! They had pen-and-paper RPGs in the 970s? :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible reception refs
Dumb D&D monsters at Cracked.com. I asked at RS/N. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's also Something Awful's WTF D&D. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Cloaker
Have a look and see what I've done with the Cloaker. When I started adding publication histories to various "fictional element" articles last year, this is an example of what I was trying to get to. I was doing this on Drow, but it got pretty lengthly do I decided to see what I could do on a smaller, less important creature (I will get back to the Drow, I promise). This format organizes the information by publication history. It keeps the text more-or-less out-of-universe by reminding the reader that "this is a game, it comes from this book", etc. It reduces, or completely eliminates original research by going straight to the text and reporting only what one sees there. It also keeps an article from being "edition specific" by giving equal airtime to all editions and presenting them in order rather than trying to mish-mosh them together; note that I even removed "Aberration" from the lead as this is a 3E-only thing. Two things it doesn't do are fixing the primary source issue, and therefore the notability issue; however, I figure if we're going to keep any of these "fictional element" articles around at all, we might as well make them as wiki-friendly as we possibly can, and then add any secondary sources as we find them.
If you want to help out in any way, be my guest. There are, well, hundreds of articles out there to pick from. :) There are even redirected articles that could be uncovered; for example, I decided to work on Cloaker in the first place because it had been redirected, and it's not the only such article I've got in mind. I plan to do this on every "fictional element" D&D article worth keeping, sooner or later, until I'm dead or burn out completely. :) I know I probably got overlong and wordy with this one, and I can't promise I won't do the same in the future, so feel free to trim out anything that does not add to the understanding of what the subject is and how it functions within the game - I won't be offended. :)
Let me know what you think before I start going hog wild on other articles, eh? BOZ (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks great. I'd worry about putting so much effort in something that may get merged, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks excellent, but it still has a primary sources issue... if that could be fixed I'd say that it is a perfect solution, but the article still doesn't technically indicate its notability. :/ I think that you probably want to focus on the monsters which are more likely to be notable first, like beholders, illithids, drow, the core character races, etc., before working on many more of these more minor creatures. Great work! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've already acquiesced on this not being able to fix the primary sources/notability issue, but I think it fixes all the other content issues? If I'm missing something there let me know. I'm not at all worried about this content getting merged somewhere; in fact, this would make the merged content much better than it otherwise would be. I'll get to beholders and illithids in time, but those are going to take a lot more work than the minor creatures because they have been used a lot more and appear in a lot more places. If you think this would be a total waste of my time despite my arguments (or maybe because of them), it would be best to discourage me now before I get myself going. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to stop you; just thought I'd mention it. Are there other more minor creatures which could have a good claim to notability? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I know of... we're going to have a tough enough time with drow, beholder, and mind flayer. :) BOZ (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, don't be a pessimist. :) Those three shouldn't be too hard. That being the case, I'd say that you can just work on most any monster or deity other than fremlins. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I could improve Fremlins too, and maybe I will, but they're pretty far from the top of my list. ;) I was actually thinking that I started working on the cloaker maybe a day or two before I realized the 4E MM2 was out, so I may want to get to working on some things that appear in the new book... like the Couatl or Bullywug, or even Yochlol. :) Fun! In fact, I may just get the bullywugs next - might be able to borrow some stuff that we dug up for Dwellers of the Forbidden City? BOZ (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, don't be a pessimist. :) Those three shouldn't be too hard. That being the case, I'd say that you can just work on most any monster or deity other than fremlins. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I know of... we're going to have a tough enough time with drow, beholder, and mind flayer. :) BOZ (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to stop you; just thought I'd mention it. Are there other more minor creatures which could have a good claim to notability? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've already acquiesced on this not being able to fix the primary sources/notability issue, but I think it fixes all the other content issues? If I'm missing something there let me know. I'm not at all worried about this content getting merged somewhere; in fact, this would make the merged content much better than it otherwise would be. I'll get to beholders and illithids in time, but those are going to take a lot more work than the minor creatures because they have been used a lot more and appear in a lot more places. If you think this would be a total waste of my time despite my arguments (or maybe because of them), it would be best to discourage me now before I get myself going. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks excellent, but it still has a primary sources issue... if that could be fixed I'd say that it is a perfect solution, but the article still doesn't technically indicate its notability. :/ I think that you probably want to focus on the monsters which are more likely to be notable first, like beholders, illithids, drow, the core character races, etc., before working on many more of these more minor creatures. Great work! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Added much to Bullywug. :) Don't have Dungeon #140, unfortunately. Next up, Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Mimic sounds like a good next target. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, would you say the mimic has undergone a significant improvement from how it was a month ago? :) Yeesh, that version said way more about other games the mimic has appeared in, rather than how it has appeared in D&D! BOZ (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a big change! Much better. My personal opinion on the style of these new publication histories does have a few problems however... don't get me wrong, they're great, but there are a few things that could make them better: First, it's a lot of block text which looks a bit intimidating, especially with only having footnotes at the ends of paragraphs. Improving the second thing should fix this, however. The second comment that I have is that they would probably be more useful if, instead of going chronologically through the various books, you describe various elements of each monster and how they evolved separately. E.g., how has the mimic's shapechanging changed over the years? If you put that in one paragraph, then put another feature in the next paragraph, etc., it may be more intuitive to read.
- I hope that helps! I look forward to seeing more of these significantly more comprehensive articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look forward to doing them. ;) I know there is a lot of text all clumped together... it could be broken up, but I don't know quite where to do it. The text could be condensed or trimmed, as well. I don't think I'll expand anything like the beholder or illithid this much, or we'll be talking an extremely long article. I'm not sure if straying from the chronological path is a good way to go... I'm specifically trying to avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR by not making comparisons from one book to another, unless I have an actual source that mentions the changes - I'm trying to go as straightforward as possible by saying "this book says this, that book says that". If you can think of a way to do what you're saying while keeping in spirit of that, I'll give it some consideration.
- Alternatively, we could split the publication section from a description section, as I had begun doing on the drow article? BOZ (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that saying something like "In the X edition BookY, ixithaxitchals best guess are described as X, but in BookA they are described as B." would be synthesis or original research... you're just discussing the differences between the books in a different manner. So it would still be "this book says this, that book says that", just formatted differently. I also like what you started in Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)... having the book information under headings based on what is being described rather than just the order that it was published in. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I was doing, stating how they were in one book and noting the differences from another book except without making a direct comparison of my own. I need to get back into working on that drow article, but I need the free time first and foremost. :) Maybe next time I take a few days off work...? BOZ (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that saying something like "In the X edition BookY, ixithaxitchals best guess are described as X, but in BookA they are described as B." would be synthesis or original research... you're just discussing the differences between the books in a different manner. So it would still be "this book says this, that book says that", just formatted differently. I also like what you started in Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)... having the book information under headings based on what is being described rather than just the order that it was published in. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we could split the publication section from a description section, as I had begun doing on the drow article? BOZ (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Got the barghest; thinking of taking the yochlol next. :) BOZ (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think those are worth exploring separately from Demons, because they weren't specifically listed as a demon in a game book until 1995 (as I recall it - when I actually look, I'll know for sure). Not gonna happen today, and I got plans for much of Fathers Day. :) BOZ (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)