Talk:The Temple of Elemental Evil

Notability Tags

I suggest that the notability, plot and references tags are speedily removed. The plot tag is simply wrong -- hardly any of the article deals with the plot, and the notability tag is mistaken. This is one of the most famous, and earliest published role playing adventures. I am not sure how it could be more notable really. Certainly it is more notable than many other D&D related pages. As for references, I think that is a mistake. There's plenty of referenced material, I am not sure what otherwise would be wanted. Francis Davey 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag, for obvious reasons. The problem with the "references" is that they are not proper inline references. A bibliography at the end of the article is no substitute for properly citing the individual items, such as the ranking in Dragon. --Orange Mike 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but it doesn't make the article non-notable. The notability is referred to in the lead. Inline references are obviously to be preferred. Francis Davey 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What part of I removed the notability tag, for obvious reasons did you not understand? I agreed with you, and removed it! --Orange Mike 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I did understand what you said. Do you disagree with anything I said? It doesn't seem so. It maybe you are reading in to what I am saying something that is not there. Francis Davey 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just confused when you wrote, it doesn't make the article non-notable as if I had said otherwise, since I had agreed with you and had deleted the tag already. We're in agreement on that all around. --Orange Mike 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I'm adding links for possible references. video game adaption. - Peregrine Fisher 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone make a disambiguation page for "temple of elemental evil"? That search string is how I got to this article, but I wanted "Temple of elemental evil (computer game)". I only eventually got to the right place by remembering the name of the developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.138.44 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a top-level disambiguation statement pointing to the computer game (i.e. a link at the very top of the article). Perhaps you just missed this? Fairsing 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Burzum

There seems to be disagreement about an unregistered user observing that the artwork for one of Burzum's albums was "inspired" (more like plagiarized, really[1]) by the original ToEE artwork. My opinion on this is that it seems perfectly okay to have it in a "Trivia" section. There've been a number of attempts to pare down or eliminate D&D content on Wikipedia, so I think including every relevant real-world influence is to our benefit (and yes, for good or ill, Burzum's influence on the black metal genera should not be disregarded).--Robbstrd 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd second including this bit - Varg has outright stated that the module art was the basis for the art on the self-titled debut and the Det Som Engang Var record (which can be viewed here http://www.burzum.org/eng/discography/official/1992_burzum.shtml and here http://www.burzum.org/eng/discography/official/1993_det_som_engang_var.shtml), and has posted a bio section (here http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/a_burzum_story01.shtml) in which he talks about being inspired by AD&D in general. As noted above, whether you're a fan or not, Burzum is certainly notable in the music world. And it's certainly notable for an adventure module to have this much influence on something outside roleplaying itself. (He even makes a point to clarify that it was "AD&D (First edition)"! Somehow not surprising that Varg'd be an edition elitist.) --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Village of Hommlet

T1 The Village of Hommlet is mentioned, but shouldn't it be a Reference link, and also a 'Linked Module'? http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/t.html This also has bearing on the Lolth page, as I was trying to see what the first reference to Lolth was. It could be T1. The T1 portion of the combined T1-4 clearly involves Lolth. But then it isn't clear if that was part of the "slight updating" between T1 and T1-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.236.94 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Temple of Elememtal Evil (CRPG).jpg

Image:The Temple of Elememtal Evil (CRPG).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot requires rewrite

The “Plot summary” evinces the worst sins of post millennial pseudowriting nonsense. Each paragraph is an unnecessary paraphrasing of the preceding paragraph, hell each sentence is a partial reiteration of the one before it. This is not only bad writing, it’s not remotely close to WP standards. Say a thing ONCE, clearly, not three or four times unclearly. Any functioning brain will be given a headache by trying to read this circular gibberish. 2603:9001:4500:1C09:9064:958E:2318:1597 (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to put any work into it? BOZ (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)