Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Eldritch Wizardry

I was very suprised and disappointed in the Eldritch Wizardry article. That book is a cornerstone of D+D history, and it is very sad to see that it is only a stub, and with questionable and biased information. I don't know where to find facts and info to flesh out the article but something needs to be done. It's a piece of history. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links after merges?

Some of the D&D material that is reduced or removed from Wikipedia after merges and deletions and similar stuff is still available at other places. Should we have external links to those places at the merge targets? There may be problems with WP:ELNO, so I have started a discussion with D&D deities as an example here. Maybe someone is interested to give his or her opinion there, too. Daranios (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

New article Gary Con could use some help

Noticing an ip editor had placed a listing for Gary Con at List of gaming conventions and knowing redlinks often get deleted from that list, I created the convention page. Thanks to David Ewalt, I was able to anchor the page with reliable sources to keep most folks from nominating for deletion. I have every intention of submitting this for DYK, because not every convention was begun as a post funeral gaming get-together. However, I was wondering if some of the project crew might help me find some additional RS and flesh this out. I suspect there's some offline sources out there, and I suspect this project group includes the sort of people who might know about them. Since we've already got some independent RS to establish notablity, we could use some connected sources like Dragon Magazine and others if you are aware of them. Please take your enthusiasm straight to the page if you'd like to help. BusterD (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Behemoth redirect

I've nominated Behemoth (Dungeons & Dragons) at WP:RFD; your input in the discussion would be appreciated. There are plenty of other similar redirects to Monster Manual that aren't mentioned there, so this may set a precedent for those. --BDD (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing video games in Navbox

Hi,

Template:D&D topics is missing some video games:

• DeathKeep
• Lords of Waterdeep
• Arena of War (no article yet)

Maybe someone could add them? -- 78.52.34.175 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I added DeathKeep, but Lords of Waterdeep is not a video game. Do you have a source that talks about Arena of War - is that an upcoming game? BOZ (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Arena of War is an f2p iOS/Android game from Mobage/DeNA, released in october or november 2013. OfficialForbes Does a port of Lords of Waterdeep to iOS not count (2nd best rated iOS game in 2013 [1])? D&D Computer Labyrinth Game is also just a electronic/board game hybrid. -- 78.52.34.175 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Allston

Aaron Allston has passed away, in case anyone has anything to add to the article. BOZ (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Dancey article

Apparently, Ryan S. Dancey is requesting some changes to his article at Talk:Ryan Dancey. 2601:D:9400:3CD:6C8F:AF5C:FA99:933D (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass blank and redirect of sourced articles

I take it the Project is okay with all these blank and redirects? This one passed, on no consensus 2 AfDs. It's my understanding that once there have been 2 AfD attempts you don't just come along and blank and redirect an article, or a dozen articles, without discussion with (a) project, (b) creators, (c) AfD participants. So please can someone link to the discussion on all the blank-and-redirect Talk pages, in case the creators restore their articles. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a small clarification, it wasn't 2 AfDs, it was 1 AfD and a withdrawn nomination, because three of the articles weren't similar enough to the others to warrant including them, Brownie being one of them. Not that this makes your point moot at all, just wanted to clarify that since I'm the (depending on who you ask) horrible monster that nominated/withdrew it in the first place. - Aoidh (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look, sure. I also didn't look to see the history of Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons) Sprite (Dungeons & Dragons) Spriggan (Dungeons & Dragons) Quickling Nixie (Dungeons & Dragons) and so on and on....... it's just that blanking and redirecting isn't how articles are deleted on en.wp but if this project and the creators want them blanked and redirected it's up to you guys, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, if a little sudden move by RPoD. I looked at a couple articles, and BOZ had posted a discussion on the talk page and the articles I spot checked had most or all primary sources. It's little unconventional, but I really don't have a problem with the result; most of the merged creatures really didn't warrant their own article. If anyone has a problem with it, you can revert the redirects and insist on AfD, but I would support such an AfD myself. The merge page at Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) could use some editing TLC, as most of the now merged articles have circular links after the redirects. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Telengard

Would Telengard meet your project scope criteria? It is based on D&D but not so explicitly czar ♔ 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Shared universe

Can anyone please take a look at the article Shared universe? It could be a decent article with enough work, but right now it is a gigantic pile of mostly unsourced WP:OR. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Standardized Format for Major Races/Creatures

Is there, or should there be, a standard format used for the prototypical player character races and other archetypal creatures? I've looked through the archived talk pages for the past couple of years, but did not see anything on point. I note that the Dwarf page is at "good" quality and there appears to have been some unnamed formatting/reverting a couple months ago to make Dwarf look more like articles without a "good" rating such as Elf, Halfling, and a handful of other prominent races. It seems like a uniform approach to this type of entry would make for better coverage and a more consistent user experience, but I'm still fairly new to any type of major editing in Wikipedia, so I thought I would ask.

Along the same lines, when referencing campaign settings, is there consensus on whether they should be italicized or not? mattpersons 20:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpersons (talk • contribs)

To answer your second question first, no, I don't believe there is any consensus for italics on campaign setting names. In my personal recollection, I have seen the publishers (TSR and WotC) more often than not, do not use italics on the world names. However, I have seen other publishers use italics. So, there is not necessarily a good or bad way to do that.

Regarding your first question, I personally would look at the dwarf article as the standard the other articles should aim for, not the other way around. Anything you can do to get them more like the dwarf article is a plus. Torchiest was the main editor getting dwarf up to its current level of quality, so you may want to ask him for tips? BOZ (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is game material a primary source?

I see a lot of D&D articles which often exclusively cite game manuals published by TSR, WOTC, etc. If they contain additional sources, those sources are often Dungeon/Dragon magazines, which again are owned by the same companies.

Wikipedia guidelines call for secondary sources in order to establish notability and verifiability, so I have two questions:

1) Is there any prior consensus on whether game manuals count as primary or secondary sources? If they count as primary sources, does this suggest that many D&D articles are candidates for deletion?

2) Is there any prior consensus on whether first-party-owned publications (such as Dungeon/Dragon) count as primary or secondary sources? I feel like they would, at least, compromise WP:NPOV Geethree (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've participated in a few D&D-related AfDs over the years. I think there is a consensus that game manuals are primary sources. They don't contribute to notability, but being authoritative on, e.g., the rules of the game, they can be used for verification of basic facts about the game. But notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not on whether they are currently cited in the article. So no, citations to game manuals don't suggest by themselves that the articles are candidates for AfD; more research would needed to determine notability. See WP:BEFORE for details on research that should be done before AfD nomination.

There is less consensus about magazine articles. Do you believe a given article is written by an independent author and only lightly edited by the publisher? Then a case can be made (obviously depending on the subject matter) that it is secondary. Or do you believe that TSR and WOTC are big rackets, with magazine authors being corporate shills basically writing ad copy? Them primary is an obvious call. My personal opinion is that each magazine article needs to looked at on case by case basis. --Mark viking (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Bahamut article, and removed the notability tag. I have since been reverted, and I am in a quandary about the notability guidelines for characters in this project. Obviously, to someone familiar with the game, Bahamut is one of the most well known figures. Inherently notable within the project, almost unknown outside of the game. Is it appropriate to tag bomb (notability, primary source, refimprove tags) for fictional characters within this project? If so, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds (371 deities alone) that would be impacted. What is the official position on this? Thanks in advance! ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of change in the referenced D&D timeline at wizards.com

FYI -- I stumbled on this article at the website of Jon Peterson, the author of Playing at the World, a 720 page tome on the history of wargames and RPGs. According to the article the official D&D timeline at wizards.com has changed (both by adding new information and correcting errors) and so any Wikipedia articles that (prior to December 2014) used references to that timeline may need rewrites. I am not sure if the "old" version of the timeline used the same URL as the new version. 172.88.146.9 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet page

The page about me, Jonathan Tweet, has been a high-importance, start-class article for years. I've found extra sources to cite, but I can't edit my own page. Recently someone tagged the page questioning its notability and citing its lack of RSs. I do a lot of WP editing, and it would sure make me happy to see someone get my page past "start" class and to get the tags off the top of the page. There are links on the talk page that people could follow. Plus 10% XP to anyone who helps out! Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Toss the sources up on here or the article talk page (which is probably preferable) and I'll work on incorporating them as best I can when I can. As for any question of your notability, that's absurd, and the tag will be taken off immediately. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some useful independent sources

I've found some independent references on D&D topics that might be of use.

Shannon Appelcline. Designers & Dragons: The '70s, Designers & Dragons: The '80s, Designers & Dragons: The '90s, Designers & Dragons: The '00s. Evil Hat Productions, 2014. General RPG references, but some useful tidbits for TSR, Wizards of the Coast, Paizo, and other companies involved in D&D.

Michael J. Tresca. The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. McFarland, 2010. General reference, but includes some overview of D&D topics.

Gabrielle Lissauer. The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction. McFarland, 2015. Includes a section that addresses the role of humans and other races in fantasy RPGs (with focus on D&D).

Doug Niles. Dragons: The Myths, Legends, and Lore. Adams Media, 2013, ISBN 978-1-440562-16-7. Includes details on Tiamat (in both her mythological and D&D incarnations) and Bahamut.

Professor Jeffrey Weinstock. The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2014, ISBN 978-1-409425-62-5. Includes articles on Tiamat and a general article on D&D monsters (an excellent source for sourcing some of those monster entries!). JEB215 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

JEB215, great, use them wherever you can!  :) Keep in mind, there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References. BOZ (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added them to the References page as suggested, and in the process found several others: The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art (2001), Gaming as Culture: Essays on Reality, Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games (2006), The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games (2010), Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom (2012), Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Read and Gain Advantage on All Wisdom Checks (2014), Dungeons & Dreamers: A Story of How Computer Games Created a Global Community (2014), and Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds (2015). Also, I noticed that two of the more mainstream publications (Playing at the World and Of Dice and Men) were missing, so I threw them in too. Now, I hope I'm not the only one who tries to use these... JEB215 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Great work! I can tell you that at the very least, I have used Designers & Dragons quite a bit, and The Evolution of FRPG somewhat from Google books, as well as Heroic Worlds a lot (which was already on the page), but I don't have access to most of those sources currently. I badly want Playing at the World, and Of Dice and Men, but haven't been able to get them yet. I wish that more people were involved in D&D and RPG related articles, but hopefully that trend will change one day, and having an improved set of reliable sources will be a great help. BOZ (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Statistics not updating

FYI, the Statistics table in the Cleanup section is outdated. Looks like the bot might not be running anymore? JEB215 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Some more possible independent sources

As mentioned elsewhere, I found two sources covering some of the Old School Revival: The Role-Playing Game Primer and Old School Playbook and the Old School Renaissance Handbook. However, the former is by the author of the Basic Fantasy RPG, and the latter is strictly an ebook.

I also found a few more while looking for sources on Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons):

• Realms: The Roleplaying Art of Tony DiTerlizzi
• Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's Guide to Tabletop Role-Playing
• Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks: An Epic Quest for Reality Among Role Players, Online Gamers, and Other Dwellers of Imaginary Realms

I'm not sure which of these are worthwhile for our uses or not. If they all seem fine, let me know and I'll throw them over to the References page. JEB215 (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and added Dragons in the Stacks and one other, Hobby Games: The 100 Best. Waiting on the others until I get a second opinion. JEB215 (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. I have used Hobby Games: The 100 Best on a few dozen articles, although mostly not D&D-related (unless you count game designers). :) BOZ (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alignment article source disagreement

It would be great if we could get some more opinions at the discussion here. The argument is basically about how detailed the section on weapon alignments should be, and whether or not forum posts at the D&D Online site are acceptable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)