Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Banner Consolidation

I took care of this tonight and finished the consolidation. I wasn't sure if I should take steps to remove it from the to-do list (or what exactly needed to be done), so can someone else either take care of that or direct me appropriately so I can take care of it?

Thanks! FraterNLST (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you! I had been doing that as I go, but now I no longer have to worry about that. If it's on a to-do list, I imagine you can remove it without question. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Retro-clone article?

I'd like to create a good article about retro-clones and simulacra. This would serve three purposes:

1. It would create a central location for information that is currently spread across a few different articles: open gaming, Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums, and OSRIC.
2. It would create a central hub for articles about retro-clone games, making them easier to find (and more likely to be improved)
3. It would provide a logical place to merge information from articles about games that were determined to not be notable enough for their own article. (See the discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Fantasy RPG)

Here's my tentative plan:

• Create an article about retro-clones in general (because while most of them are D&D-derived, more and more aren't). Maybe call it Retro-clone roleplaying games, with suitable redirects from other possible titles, like Roleplaying game simulacrums (simulacra?) (I picked retro-clone as the title because it seems to be the most widely-used word)
• Merge Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums into it, along with the scattered info from other articles.
• Make a category for related articles.
• Make an infobox

How does this sound? I'd like appreciate any input or assistance with sources. zorblek (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of them, but I stopped playing DnD in about 85. The trick is to find newspaper or magazine articles about the subject. You probably cannot, so the article will be against "our" rules (rules I don't agree with, but I can still explain them no matter how much I disagree). So, create the article if you want. But, if you could come up with a couple of magazine articles on the subject, you'll be a lot closer to having created something that will last. Generally, in my experience, sources don't exist for stuff after about 1985, so look at the old magazines first, if you can. It's even more complicated than what I've tried to explain, so ask any questions you have here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, merging is generally praised, so if you want to do some merging, go for it, and ignore what I said above. The category thing is more complicated, and I don't have advice on that part. I would say just do that, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "retro-clone" sounds like a neologism. First you would likely need to establish the notability of that term, which may not be that easy if it was just invented by fans on a blog or forum.—RJH (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of "retro-clone" myself, but it seems to be the most widely used and recognized term for these games. As I understand it, it was coined by the creator of Labyrinth Lord to describe his game, although I'm not sure if the term is used in the game itself. I'm pretty sure the Escapist used it in the title of their roundup of simulacra. zorblek (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A type of article I often see in the AfD queue is one that concerns a neologism, so it's best to avoid their use in the article title unless the notability can be solidly backed up. Having the term coined by a source that is itself perhaps barely notable, probably doesn't help.—RJH (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually understand what this proposal is for. What is a "retro-clone", and why do things which aren't called "retro-clones" by their authors belong in a page on such a subject? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is at [1]. Still some discussion about using a redirect from retroclones or some such, but I don't think it's needed at this time. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights

Someone has been speculating here about Atari releasing NWN 3, using what appears to be flimsy evidence. Does anyone know more about this? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a rumor at this point.[2] I know there was some sort of legal battle between Atari and Hasbro at the end of last year, so perhaps that is related?[3]—RJH (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is may be announcement: Cryptic Reveals Neverwinter PC RPG

—RJH (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reassessments

I took a look at all the B-class articles and checked them against the B-class checklist. I didn't mess with any articles where someone had already ticked off all the items on the checklist as Yes. On the rest of them, I did a surface examination of the referecing, structure, and supporting materials criteria, and added the checklist for easier reference. I downgraded Dungeons & Dragons Online and Illithid to C-class, due to sourcing issues. I likewise happened to notice Carl Critchlow (some time illustrator for 3E books), and upgraded him from a Start to a C-class. I'm going to have to re-review the C-class criteria to make sure I'm not assigning that one arbitrarily. I'll have a look at all the C-class articles (currently 100 of them) next, and if I don't burn out I'll eventually take a look at the starts and stubs. If anyone wants to help me out by reassessing, adding the checklist, or checking off skipped items on the checklist, please do feel free! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm plowing along. I've gone through about 2/3 of the C-class articles so far. I've downgraded several of them to Start-class, due to lack of sufficient (or any) citations. I should be done with the C-class probably some time next week. I'll move on to the Start-class articles at that point, which should take a considerable amount of time as there are some 1000-ish articles there! :) I suspect there will be a few Starts which I can promote to C-class, and there are probably Stubs which can be promoted as well. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen you work hard, indeed! Hekerui (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I am now done with all the C-class articles. I intend to get to the Start-class articles, but I think I will be busy with other stuff for a few days and I need a break anyway.  :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a break because I wanted to go through all of the redirect and merge-class articles, and check for anything that was mislabelled or that had been restored but not reassessed. I found several that should have been Start or Stub so I fixed that, and a few hundred marked as redirect that I changed to merge.

Next plan is to start going through the Start-class articles as I was doing with the B's and C's already. There are over 1000 of those currently, and over 600 Stub-class articles after that, so that will take some time.  :) I imagine I will find a number of them that should be upgraded to a C, or maybe aren't quite filled out enough to be a Start so I will downgrad them to a Stub. Hope to start today! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

204.153.84.10 is DnD editor of the month. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Also, another thing I did was to blank the talk pages of a few dozen non-articles which have only ever been redirects (redirects after page moves, alternate names, etc), so that should have reduced the total number of D&D-related pages (pages, not articles) significantly. I'll also probably do the reverse of something else I was doing previously - I'm sure a number of the Starts and Stubs have been merged/redirected without updating the talk page, so I'll switch the assessment appropriately, which means the article count will go down slightly. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's one of the most useful things. It would be good to redirect/merge a lot of our lesser articles, and correct categories can help find the ones left to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Made a little progress on the Start-class articles today; actually began on Friday though. My computer seems to be running Wikipedia very slowly lately, so this is going to take a lot longer than originally expected! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I finished up through the A's. For an idea of the what that means, I downgraded 15 articles to stubs, kept 50 as starts, and Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) was upgraded to C-class. You won't see me again over the long weekend. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving right along in the B's, just finished all the Baldur's Gate-related articles. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy moly we have a lot of articles. I think we have more articles than most countries. I don't envy you, but I appreciate it a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Like everyone else who edits Wikipedia, it's a labor of love. :) Anyway, wanted to finish up the B's before the weekend, so I did! I downgraded 14 articles to stubs, kept 61 as starts, and found one that had been Merged. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if WP is like the MM, but the Monster Manual's "D" section was huge. It had demons, devils, dragons, plus other stuff too. Look out for that letter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Breezed through the C's - and yes, "D" should be pretty time consuming, as I am already aware! I downgraded 16 articles to stubs, kept 45 as starts, and Characters of the Order of the Stick was upgraded to C-class. It looks like, so far, about 25% of the Starts are really stubs - if that holds up, there should be roughly 800-ish in each category after I finish the Starts, although I suspect that when I go through the Stubs I'll be bringing some of those up to Start! I'm finished about 200 reassessments, and it took a few weeks, so at this rate it will probably take me a couple more months to finish the Start-class articles. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The D's definitely took some time, but I got through it! I downgraded 17 articles to stubs, kept 86 as starts, upgraded Descent into the Depths of the Earth and Desert of Desolation to C-class, and removed two articles which had been merged already. That definitely threw off my ratio of keeps to stubs! Oh well, no biggie - will try to get through the E's tomorrow. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Got through the E's no problem, and will probably do the same with the F's tomorrow. I downgraded 6 articles to stubs, and kept 31 as starts. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done with the F's; I'm not going to try to do all the G's in one day, way too many.  :) I downgraded 10 articles to stubs, and kept 21 as starts. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing work. Are you doing anything with importance? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Peregrine Fisher. No, I'm not doing anything with the importance rating, just the class, although it would help if someone would check those too. I am also not checking all six of the B-class criteria, just b1, b3, and b5 and making a quick estimate of whether the article meets the sourcing, structure, and supporting materials requirements. I am leaving requirements b2 (coverage and accuracy), b4 (grammar and style), and b6 (accessibility) blank, because those can't be checked on a quick pass. If you want to go back over anything I did and assess it properly, be my guest, although please don't work on anything that I haven't gotten to already as I'm working off of a list. Don't worry; I've already looked at hundreds of articles (see above), so there will be plenty to pick from. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Got the G's done, finally. I downgraded 15 articles to stubs, and kept 43 as starts, and upgraded Ed Greenwood to C-class. More tomorrow! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Got the H's done. I downgraded 8 articles to stubs, and kept 22 as starts, and upgraded Tracy Hickman to C-class. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ran through I and J since they were both rather short. I downgraded 7 articles to stubs, kept 19 as starts, and removed two articles which had been merged already. I'm going to start on the K's, but I won't finish those today! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's about half the alphabet. I think after m and n, there will be a lot fewer per letter (Quasit, Xorn, ... done). Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When I started with the Starts, I printed out a list of 5 pages. The 5th page is a little bit shorter, and I'm nearly at the halfway point of the 3rd page, so yep I'm about halfway there and it only took a month to do it! Persistence and determination... 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Got the K's. I downgraded 6 articles to stubs, kept 31 as starts, and removed two articles which had been merged already. I should be able to finish L by the end of the week, but M will take a few days. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Got through the L's before the long weekend! I downgraded 13 articles to stubs, kept 29 as starts, and removed one article which had been merged already. Have a good 4th of July! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished the M's - that didn't take as much work as I thought it would. I downgraded 13 articles to stubs, kept 48 as starts, and removed two articles which had been merged already. I'll commence with N later today. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it up. I like the periodic reports. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do! Finished the N's and O's. I downgraded 11 articles to stubs, kept 32 as starts, and removed one article which had been merged already and one that was redirected a long time ago as a result of an AFD. My goal for next week is to get P-R, so that I can focus on the beast that the letter S is! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished up P & Q. I downgraded 13 articles to stubs, kept 32 as starts, upgraded Queen of the Demonweb Pits to C-class, and removed one article which had been merged already and one that was redirected a long time ago. My goal for tomorrow is to get through R - not an easy task! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished R - took longer than I expected. I downgraded 17 articles to stubs, kept 19 as starts, upgraded Red Hand of Doom to C-class, and removed three articles which had been merged already and one that was redirected a long time ago. Should take up a big chunk of next week to get through S! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished S - what a beast! I downgraded 21 articles to stubs, kept 52 as starts, and removed five articles which had been merged already and two that were already redirected. I'm going to start on T now and try to finish it by the weekend, and after that there isn't a whole lot left in the alphabet! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You could use this on your admin application, if you cared for that kind of stuff. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished T-V... I'm going to see if I can make it my goal to finish the Start-class articles by the end of the week. I'm going to take a break now because I have something else I need to get done, but if I have the time and energy after that I'm going to push through the W's. I won't have a lot of time tomorrow, but X-Z is practically nothing so I'm sure I can find the time for those tomorrow if I can manage through W tonight.  :) I downgraded 31 articles to stubs, kept 62 as starts, and removed five articles which had been merged already and one that was already redirected. For a bit of perspective, that's about 100 articles, and there are just over 50 left. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Whew - got through W. Really burning the midnight oil this time! X-Z should pose no real challenge, although I may have to fudge a bit to get them done as I'm going to be really busy tomorrow. But I will do it.  ;) I downgraded 14 articles to stubs, and kept 21 as starts. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And I did it! No problem to get through X-Z, really, just had to make the time for it. I downgraded 3 articles to stubs, kept 12 as starts, and removed three articles which had been merged already. Currently there are 725 Start articles left, when I believe I started with right around 1000. Not all of those 275 or so that I removed became stubs, as quite a few (as mentioned) had already been merged or redirected already, and no one had updated the talk page. Next week I plan to get a start on the Stub-class articles; at the moment there are 873, but I'm going to skip more than 200 of those because I already reviewed them - good thing I took notes! Anyway, have a good weekend... I'll be leaving soon. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a break, it was refreshing, got going on the Stub-class articles today.  :) One thing I noticed off the bat was something I suspected all along. Just as there were articles previously assessed in the Start-class that were properly Stub articles, there are definitely those in the vice versa. So far I found three that I upgraded to Start - no idea if they were mis-assessed, or if they had just been improved since that time, but they are definitely Start-class material now. I'm sure I will not be upgrading anywhere near as many to Start as I downgraded to Stub, but if I found three in the first dozen I looked at there are bound to be more! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished with the A's (and the ones that start with numbers) already - I can see this is going to go much faster! I upgraded 3 articles to starts, kept 33 as stubs, and removed one article which had been merged already. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Breezed through the B's! I upgraded 1 article to start, kept 38 as stubs, and removed one article which had been merged already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Plowed my way through the C's today. Should get through the D's next week, but GenCon is going to try to cut my week short. ;) I upgraded 6 articles to starts, kept 52 as stubs, and removed two articles which had been merged already. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished the D's! I upgraded 4 articles to starts, kept 64 as stubs, and removed one article which had been merged already. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Got through E-F today. I upgraded 1 article to start, kept 51 as stubs, and removed one article which had been merged already. Time for a break for a few days - see you Tuesday. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished G-H. I upgraded 1 article to start, and kept 61 as stubs. Done with that! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Got the I's yesterday and the J's just now - not too much for those. I upgraded 1 article to start, and kept 36 as stubs. I'll try to get through the K's today, if I have the time! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast! Maybe we should start a new section so this one can be archived (next update). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished the K's - here's a first; I kept all 35 as Stubs. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Got through the L's quickly enough - will do some of the M's later today if I can. I upgraded 1 article to start, kept 26 as stubs, and removed one article which had been merged already. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished the M's. I upgraded 1 article to start, kept 52 as stubs, and removed three articles which had been merged and/or redirected already.

Got N and O. I upgraded 3 articles to start, and kept 43 as stubs. Going to try for P-Q tomorrow. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

P and Q went fairly quickly. I upgraded 2 articles to start, and kept 45 as stubs. Will see if I can get some of R done before the weekend. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always appreciated when you mind your P's and Q's. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would catch that. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Got through R. I upgraded 2 articles to start, and kept 50 as stubs. Will start on the S's, which should take a few days I imagine. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Got through S quicker than I'd imagined! I upgraded 3 articles to start, kept 73 as stubs, and removed four articles which had been merged and/or redirected already. I have a feeling that T will take about as long as S did, maybe longer. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a wonderful bit of work you've been doing! Hobit (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm getting excited that I'm near the end.  :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I plowed through T... and I'm T-ired.  :) I upgraded 4 articles to start, kept 97 as stubs, and removed one article which had been redirected already. I now have a goal in mind... let's see if I can get through these before the end of the month! I'll get through U-V tomorrow with no problem, and try to get a headstart on W so I can finish the darn thing up on Monday! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished U-V, which should come as no surprise. I upgraded one article to start, kept 21 as stubs, and removed two articles which had been merged already. It looks like I'm down to a few dozen left to look at. I'm going to do a few of the W's in a moment, and I'll finish up the rest of the stubs on Monday and/or Tuesday! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished W-Z, just as I knew I would! I upgraded one article to start, kept 50 as stubs, and removed five articles which had been merged and/or redirected already. What's next for me? Getting back a bunch of my free time, that's what! I can't believe I started this almost five months ago, but I'm glad I did it. Now, as for filling in criteria #2, 4, and 6 on all the articles - I leave that one up to everyone else! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar. I can't really add it anywhere for it to be yours alone, but your work and dedication are very much appreciated. Hekerui (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely going to be a lot easier to keep track of assessments on D&D articles from now on. I've been thinking about making another drive towards getting more articles to GA (or the best we can get them), and this will really help. Need some time to get some notes together first though. :) BOZ (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

catscan_rewrite tool

I've been using the following powerful tool quite a bit to look for articles under a particular category that do not have the appropriate project tag:

• http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php

You might also find it useful. Just give a Depth (say 2) to search, a Category to check, the name of the project Template(s) (in the "Has none of these templates:" box), set Redirects to No, then click on the "Do it!" button. After a few minutes of searching it should return you a list of candidate articles that may need the template. Unfortunately you still have to check each article individually because of cross-over categories, but at least it gives you a place to start.—RJH (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I only found seven articles (at a depth of 3) without D&D wikiproject templates, so the project looks to be in pretty good shape. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I added the banner to three of those, removed the cats from an article where they didn't belong, and left the rest alone. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Pulsipher

Hey there. Lewis Pulsipher wrote an article about himself, and the article was put up for speedy deletion. If there's anything you can do to salvage this one, please do! :) BOZ (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave Arneson image

To prove just how effective we are: on June 3, 2009, I messaged a Flickr user to ask whether an image of Dave Arneson could be freely released and 16 months later it's happened :) Hekerui (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL - good deal. :) BOZ (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Dungeons & Dragons articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)