Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BreathingMeat (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 21 November 2008 (→Drow image: :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

D&D template

Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)I was looking for a good template to put on the Wizards of the Coast article, but unfortunately there is no general D&D template like the {{MTG navbox}}. Would anyone who knows how to design a template like that want to take a stab at it? We could use something like this list that I came up with as an idea of how to approach it, and/or incorporate some of the existing templates like {{D&D Books}}, {{D&D creatures}}, {{D&D deities}}, {{D&D Campaign Settings}}, {{D&D character class}} {{D&D 4E}}, and {{Outer Planes}}. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got an idea for what you want to go in it (a list somewhere would probably help), I can throw the template itself together pretty easily. Just throwing things out, I'm guessing you want it to be collapsible, and titled something obvious like {{D&D navbox}}? Drop me a line when you wanna' get a draft or something going. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those uber-navboxen are so great. What about something like {{Games Workshop}}, which only covers the most important parts of the domain without getting too in-universe? Individual articles within said domains can use the more specific navboxen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no preference what goes into the template myself, I'm just offering to do the technical coding of it. I'm happy to make whatever there's consensus for. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no preference either. :) The GW box is succinct enough, but it is large; a collapsable one like the MtG box takes up much less space when not expanded. It doesn't have to include a million things, but a combination of most of the stuff in the templates I listed above, adding some of the articles in the list I linked to above, such as game system fundamentals, designers & artists, and some of the seminal works (not every book ever printed). BOZ (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be great to have a single navbox that compiled most, if not all, of the current ones. There are definitely some links that could be removed from some of them, but I think that one long, collapsible navbox would make navigation much easier than having so many different navboxes only on pages that they specifically relate to. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could start with something like this:

Something like Template:D&D navigation, then? This was practically auto-generated from that list - a few search-and-replace strings was all it took. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed my signature from one spot; I hadn't placed it there. Anyway, I think that that list looks pretty good to start with, maybe adding a few more things to the Races section and adding in my compilation Deity articles once those are all finished, but otherwise I'll start adding it to the articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris - that's a great start. Not exactly ready yet, but it's a good starting point. One problem though is that it's huge - could we make it collapsable like the MTG navbox? Some of those items can be bunched together like in the MTG navbox, so maybe we'd have 3-5 collapsable sections? BOZ (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that making it collapsible is the answer. If it's too big, it should be trimmed until it provides an overview, and then users can drill down from there - it's not especially likely that a user is going to want to leap straight from a page on Gary Gygax (which would have this template at the bottom) onto one about Dwarven deities or Drizzt Do'urden's swords or this guy in a video game. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would find the ability to jump around just like that most helpful. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might, but consensus across the general navbox domain appears to be that navboxen should not attempt to be all-encompassing directories. We have the categories for that kind of thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a look at the way the MTG navbox is used on Wizards of the Coast for example, you can see that the multi-collapsable navbox can be set to have just one section open. So, for example, if placed on the Gygax page, you could have the designers section open for someone who wants to look at the other important creators of D&D this would be easily accessible. The same user could then open any other section of interest. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've come up with as a template idea... I think that it could definetely use some work, but I think that something like that would be best. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on the template's talk page. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I'm talking about. I personally would like to see the Underdark article in there somewhere, but if there's no good fit I won't cry. ;) Maybe add some modules under the publications section? Maybe Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, Ravenloft (D&D module), Temple of Elemental Evil, Dragonlance modules (DL series), Red Hand of Doom for starters? BOZ (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go and work on adding some more stuff and doing a little bit of reformatting, and I'll definitely keep those in mind. Also, thanks for linking the Monsters section. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Removed indent- I've just made a bunch of additional updates and modifications to the template. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking pretty good now.BOZ (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do you have any other ideas about what kinds of things should or shouldn't be in the template? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I'm going to continue work on work on some compilation articles so that they can be added before we move the template out of the User namespace for actual use. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I see a few different links around here, are we talking about User:Drilnoth/D&D Navbox template idea? If so, my suggestion is to clean up the articles a little further first. That template is a beast right now. I took a look at two articles at (somewhat) random: Boccob and Olidammara. Both articles are tagged as having no secondary sources and as being written from a predominately in-universe perspective. Thus, these articles do not show me why they are notable according to our guideline on notability. Maybe they are notable, maybe they aren't—I haven't looked for sources myself—but I would suggest that you look at these types of articles and determine what is truly notable and what needs to be redirected, merged, or transwikied. Drilnoth, I know you've been doing some work in this vein lately. If you keep at it, I think you'll be able to get your template down to a much more manageable size. Pagrashtak 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the advice! The reason that Boccob and Olidammara are in the template is because they are core deities, and to start with I put all of the 3.5 and 4E core gods in the list. I am still working on compiling articles, which will make the template more manageable... right now I'm combing through some monsters, which will let me get that section a little smaller, although that isn't the biggest problem. After that I'm thinking about working on some of the general deities (those which aren't demihuman or monster), such as the ones that you mentioned, and maybe some D&D books and campaign settings. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Removed indent-There haven't been many changes, but do you think that it should be moved into the template namespace and used? Or should we wait to have it smaller first instead of changing it as time goes on? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's way too large to be used right now. Pagrashtak 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be cut from it? I'll keep working on some compilations so that we can shorten my idea and make it a bit more manageable. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the "Worlds" section. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A generic "Monster" category

I think that it would be nice to have a single category for all D&D monsters, rather than having categories for "standard" monsters, various campaign settings, various creature types, etc. Any thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the feeling that the "standard" monsters cat was introduced to cover everything in the 3.0 MM - obviously, we no longer need or want such a category. A signle monster category would be fine, although some of the child cats (extraplanar, undead, campaign setting) might be worth keeping. I'm all in favor of killing the standard category and having a bot fix all the articles that currently have it. BOZ (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good, if all monsters were in one category [i]and[/i] in sub-categories. Also, it would be best to have things like Gauth included even though that is a redirect into Beholder, so that all of the monsters are listed, not just the individual pages. Unfortunately, I really don't know how to use bots, so if you or someone else could set that up it would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone own Stormwrack?

The section on darfellan in Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons) really needs some citations, so if someone who has the book could removed original research and cite official content, that would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, welcome to fiction coverage on Wikipedia. ;) One of the main reasons many deletionists hate articles on fiction... If only I owned that book, I'd be glad to help. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that for the sake of readability we could remove all of the individual -Citation needed- and -Who?- tags and just add a general cleanup tag to the sections that had them? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think so. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll do that in a moment. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points of Light Campaign Setting

it doesn't have an article, nor is it mentioned at all in the 4th ed section of the Player's Handbook article. seeing as it's the new core campaign setting, i think it ought to be at least mentioned. i just had cause to refer to it in my improvements of the Warforged article. should i add a section to the Player's Handbook article, to a list of D&D campaign settings (is there one?), or make a whole new article for it? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it certainly deserves a mention, although you should specify that it is a world style, not a campaign setting per se... the PoL style is used in Forgotten Realms and Eberron for 4th edition, for example, in addition to the generic campaign setting. Also, I think that any mention like that would make more sense on the Dungeon Master's Guide page. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, good work on updating the Warforged article. Now all we need are some independent sources and it'll be done! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WP:D&D Main Page Idea

Hi! I've been working on a new idea for the D&D project page that would be easier to navigate, in addition to looking better, if most of you think that it would be better than what we currently have. You can see what I've come up with so far here. I'd particularly like to point out the public watchlist... so far it has most of the major D&D articles on it, along with a few others, but I hope to make it larger over time. A link to the watchlist is at the bottom of the left panel on my idea page.

Note that I took quite a bit of the code from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons, so there are still quite a few Simpsons-related links and stuff scattered through the pages, which I hope to cleanup soon.

Also, I request that you don't change the subpage or the subpage's subpage for the time being... I'm still really in the middle of getting it all constructed and would rather not have other people changing the code. However, if there's something that you think needs changing please post it on the talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea! The current project page is pretty stale, despite the sprucing up I did last month. I really like the idea of a public watchlist; I'll help you increase it when you are ready. And also, I really have to applaud you on all the initiative you've been taking lately to liven things up around here. Things have been pretty dead for the last 6 months or so (is that better than fighting about templates all the time - you be the judge!) and I hope other people take notice of your efforts and really get things moving around here again. BOZ (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll probably need a few days to a week to get things all figured out with the new page, formatting, content, etc., etc. The watchlist can be used now to keep an eye on major articles, here if you want... other articles, along with templates, lists, etc., will be added. If you have any ideas at all for it, or if you see something wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't seem to exist... BOZ (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry. Try this. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Remove indent-Do you think that I should try to get the page done and up as soon as possible, or should I spend more time on getting the various subpages that I have planned up first? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you got to do to get it ready - there's no rush. :) BOZ (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Just so you know, some of the subpages that I'm creating for it I'm putting in the Wikipedia namespace rather than the User namespace because it will make the setup once I'm ready to officially launch MUCH easier... see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Userboxes as an example. That page will be linked from the main page once the new page is up, but right now the only real way to get to it is through my userspace. Also, certainly feel free to look around the pages that I've been working on... the main page itself contains up-to-date content right now, it's just the subpages and stuff that I'm still working on. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that it would be best to get it set up now... any other subpages can wait. Just let me know if there's anything else that it needs and then I'll set it up. See it now!. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms

Hey there. :) In our recent push to get D&D articles up to Good Article status, we have been successful with Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast. My original intention was to move immediately on to Dragonlance and then Forgotten Realms. However, looking at both of them (and Drow, the only other article in the 0.7 CD selection), I realize that they are both hardly referenced at all, and even then are referenced mostly to primary sources. I know that they both have as much potential to get to GA as the EGG and WotC articles, but due to lack of sourcing and relying on in-universe info, they are both a long way off.

What we need are reliable sources, with which to source the info in these articles. If you have a book or magazine or something and can do the sourcing work yourself, then great. If you can point me to a website, then I can do the work. We need creator interviews, product reviews, publishing and sales information for the product lines, etc. I may move on to nominating comic book articles, but I'll give this some time in case someone comes up with something quickly, and if we find something later I'll definitely revisit this. :) BOZ (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Player's Handbook? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Are you thinking of nominating it, or do you mean using it as a source? ;) I like what you're thinking, but at present the article is really bare and would need a lot of work just to get it past Start class. Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual are in a similar state. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that we could work on it to try and move it in the direction of nomination... but I guess you're right about that. I'll search around a little bit to see if I can find something else good. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Compare with Libris Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness, and Ravenloft (D&D module) for the amount of work that will need to be done to get those to GA. I'm certainly not above doing the work (as you may have noticed), but let's get a better handle on what we're doing - thus why I'm asking for some "reliable sources" before I go ahead with DL and FR. If you can find any others which are solid C or B class with halfway decent referencing already to non-primary sources, then great, otherwise I'd prefer to stick with the ones I mentioned above for now and get them sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll start work on Forgotten Realms next (that is, right after I get the new WP:D&D main page functional). Do you think that Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting should be merged into it? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that one's for the book/boxed set, not the product line or setting. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My main reason was because there is some product information in Forgotten Realms. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article should definitely talk about the FRCS boxed sets (1E & 2E) and books (3E & 4E i presume), as well as any other notable products, and any video game and other adaptations. The FRCS article should have more detail about that specific product than you would want to find in the campaign setting's article. One thing that comes to mind is we should expand on the series of Dragon articles regarding the Realms that preceeded - and caused the demand for - any official FR products. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although many of the old members of the Dragonlance Wikiproject (including me) are no longer active (or don't have the time to contribute), I would like to congratulate you on taking the initiative to improve these articles; they've been sitting around for a long time. Ddcc 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Presuming this project might be interested. - jc37 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got some time on your hands

Any help with User:HooperBandP/Sandbox would be appreciated. I think it would be really handy for those surfing through the D&D section of the wiki. Just alot of compiling that needs to be done. I'll get it where I want it to be eventually, but help is always loved. Hooper (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting... maybe something like that could be put in the new general D&D template that has been discussed above. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the basics of each edition page set up and under construction. Mainly just verifying the list, gathering all the books, and getting a ref or so (I'm not sure if I can use the D&DWiki as a ref. When I'm not at work I'll see if the WotC site has a list somewhere for ref). I think the hardest will be combing thru all editions to gather all the campaign-specific releases in one page, but I think it'll be worth it in the end. Hooper (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, I like it! I was thinking that we needed something like this... BOZ (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a page for the other 2E settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun), either on separate pages or all on one page. Did you want to include modules too, or just supplements? A complete list would go a long way towards figuring out what we do and do not have covered here on WP already, and what needs to be added somewhere. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spelljammer, thats the one I was trying to remember earlier and couldn't. I'd like to see it become all-encompassing. A big task but its useless if it isn't imo. Any ideas are welcome. Whatever the community thinks is best. I as thinking of modules/adventures being listed on the same page as the edition they were made for, in their own list. But if you've got a better idea let me know. If anyone knows of a good site with by-eidtion listing, please share. Hooper (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at it, if we update List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures with the pre-3.0 modules, that might hold. Maybe reword it on the template as "Adventure Modules from all Editions" or something so the average browser knows they are all collected there. Hooper (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my article compiling, I've been thinking about having pages for supplements but couldn't figure out how to sort them, but it makes sense to organize them by edition. There are a lot of stubs (like Complete Mage that could be merged into a list with other supplements. When you're done getting the basics set up, I could actually add links to my general template instead of having another separate navbox... it could pretty much replace the publications section. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can get a genius' help for a moment. I moved the template from my userspace to Template:D&D materials. Somehow the code is interferring with an old 3.x book template called D&D Books, and when I try to edit the current navbox, it takes me there. Anyone know how to solve this problem? Hooper (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, figured it out. Hooper (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just wanted to mention that I have plans to revise my general D&D template within the next week or so, and I'll incorporate the additional articles from your template. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know a good ref site so I can get the Campaign-specific publication materials pages created? Hooper (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to get you this sooner: http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/index.htm :) BOZ (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WP:D&D Main Page Update

Hi! I just wanted to point out a few updates (you can see the entire idea page here):

-I've added a "Did you know..." section. -I've expanded the announcements section. -I've started work on a guide to the page to make it easier for newcomers to use and edit it. Work isn't done on it, but I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at what I have now and edit it where needed... I've found that it is difficult to write in that kind of style, so it might be kind of stilted as-is. Also, I have some editing hints there... I don't want it to sound like I'm saying that you can't edit anything unless it is discussed in the guide, but it's hard to tell whether it sounds like that or not when I'm writing it. That information is really meant to make it easier for newcomers and other users not used to templates to update the page with new DYN content, tasks, announcements, etc. -The watchlist has gotten quite a few updates. Feel free to add in any other articles you want.

-Drilnoth (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that everything's up and ready to go. If anyone thinks something should be added or changed before the new page is launched, please let me know. It may take an hour or two for me to get the new page up and running once I start, during which time the project page probably won't work quite right as I move pages, edit links, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of dark backgrounds myself, but then again I'm not a member of this WikiProject!  :) When I teach web programming to my students, I typically tell them that black text on a white background, while perhaps not the most "exciting" thing, is very readable. White text on a black background gives me a headache if I read it for more than 5-10 minutes. While your proposal isn't that extreme, I think the black text on a (somewhat) dark background makes for more difficult reading. Your mileage may vary of course... --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would suggest an overall white background, but if you want something to distinguish the section headers, I'd suggest black text on a (very lightly) colored background. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and will look into lightening the background... I think that some shading would be nice, because the page just looks more... well.. "Dungeony" if there's some grey to it, but I'll definetely see what I can do to lighten the color a little bit. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! How does that look? Link. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! I'd still suggest a lighter color for the heading boxes, but that's much better than it was before. Of course you could always wait for other opinions than just mine.  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drow image

Does anyone know what might be a good image for Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)? I'm going to try really improving the article and an image would be helpful. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could get a fair use image from Wizards.com's Drow of the Underdark art gallery. For a single image, I'd recommend "Constant Guardian" by Franz Vohwinkel, as it's the only one with a good view of both a male and female Drow. With two images, I'd recommend either "Constant Guardian" and "Elves" by Todd Lockwood (on the 5th page of the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting gallery) or one image with a good view of a male Drow and one with a good view of a female Drow. If you're going to use three or more images, I'd recommend "Elves", at least one image with a good view of a male Drow and at least one with a good view of a female Drow. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I didn't know whether or not images from the art galleries could be used under fair use... I'm guessing I'd need to reduce their resolution, right? Also, right claim of fair-use do you think would work? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know much about American fair use law, however I just skimmed Wikipedia:Non-free content, and it's stricter than I thought it was. It seems that the policy only allows "paintings and other works of visual art" and "other promotional material" is only acceptable when used for critical commentary. Also, according to the policy "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.". It looks like you might need to find some fan art with a free license. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But is fan-art genuinely free? I remember we had a discussion about that long ago, and we thought that fan-art is derivative of WotC's non-free content - i.e. descriptions and/or illustrations in the source manuals. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but the Illithid article has used a fan art image for over a year without any complaints. I've brought up the issue of the seemingly pointless critical commentary clause at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Critical commentary. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a lovely fan-art Beholder at File:Beholder.jpg which was used on the talk page for Beholder to clarify what the article was about. It was deleted a couple of times, with reason "copyvio". I hope this policy changes because it seems silly that we cannot illustrate the monster articles, even by drawing pictures ourselves. Especially in light of the fact that there IS fan-art being published all over the Internet with no trouble from WotC. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it really was fan-art that was released into the public domain, I'd assume that the deleter just thought that it was a copyvio, and now it could probably be restored. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that there's an image with the same name at Commons in the most recent deletion entry, but there isn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding images in general, I've added one to Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there were some misunderstandings regarding the commons' policies. The image on commons on July 11th due to violating Commons:Derivative works. The local version was deleted on October 29th last year due to allegedly meeting the I8 speedy deletion criterion, despite the image violating the contemporary version of the commons' policy on derivative works, and despite the contemporary version of the deletion policy restricting I8 to images which do not violate the commons' policies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Maxim to to undelete it here. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your talk-page link. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Derivative works seems very clear and explicit on the matter of using derivative works to illustrate articles about copyrighted works. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Whether or not correct procedure was followed in the deletion of the Beholder picture, it remains the case that we should not be using it. Sadly it appears that many of the monster articles should remain unillustrated, and that the Illithid image should probably go too. Of course, this does not apply to monsters whose appearances are not subject to copyright, such as centaurs, giant spiders, etc. BreathingMeat (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Derivative works only applies to the Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines are Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's encouraging. However, there is no free use rationale on Image:Mindflayer.jpg (which will presumably fail its contention to enter the Wikimedia Commons) so it remains in danger of deletion until it gets a free-use rationale. So the question is: Can we meet the Significance criterion for non-free content use in the case of using a derived-work image to illustrate a Wiki article on a WotC copyrighted monster? Does anyone want to suggest a sample free-use rationale? Which image copyright template should we be using? BreathingMeat (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-removed indent-(I made the image into a link because of its size. I hope you don't mind.) -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an idea, would a combination fair-use/free license make the images work in Wikipedia (although not Commons)? Something like on Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The minis image uses the "Non-free 3D art" template, so fair use justification in its case would depend on the articles discussing the artworks illustrated, rather than the characters they represent. Because the articles for which fair use is claimed discuss the use of the actual figures as part of playing games, I guess fair use applies. But unless our monster articles were about the artworks themselves (or the artist who produced them) then I don't think any of the "Non-free Art" templates can apply. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! I think that I've found a way to use even official Wizards/TSR images to illustrate monsters and such: {{Non-free character}}. I first saw the rationale here; do you think that it would work? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The danger with that is the Respect for commercial opportunities aspect of non-free content use. If we use WotC images to illustrate Wiki articles, that could be seen as damaging WotC's ability to use their artwork as an inducement to visit the official websites and/or buy their illustrated sourcebooks. I think that's a fair objection. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would not preclude us from using non-commercial fan-art, though. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessement Table

Does this get update automatically by bots, or is it manual? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the bots take care of that. They're a little slow at the moment though, because I think they haven't updated since October. I might be wrong though. BOZ (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, yes, if you look at the edit history, you'll see the last bot update was Oct 29. BOZ (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I just created another two article classes (Project and Needed) and saw that they haven't been added in. Also, sometime soon I'm going to try and go through a bunch of articles and give them proper assessments... there seem to be a lot of unassessed articles and articles that still have, for example, an assessment of "Stub" even though they've been expanded. Would manually editing the page mess the bots up? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait to see if the bot picks it up on the next go-around. In theory, the bot is supposed to run every 3-6 days, so hopefully it won't be long now. If the next update is incomplete, someone from the 1.0 team should be notified. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manually editing the templates on article talk pages is the intention, not manually editing the statistics page. You update the project template on a talk page as appropriate and, when the bots run next time around, they pick up on the changes and the statistics are automatically updated. As BOZ said, for whatever reason, the bots haven't run for a couple of weeks now, but should (at some point) do so. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I thought. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving an update: I asked about the bot here, and at least one other user has reported a similar delay. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the index (or the first part of it at this link), checking random projects suggest that the bots haven't updated anything since Oct 27 or Oct 29, depending upon the particular project. I'm sure it's a temporary blip. Robots gotta play too, don't they (or their operators)?  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out that the bot is, in fact, operating... it looks like it just hasn't gotten around to us for a while. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has been fixed and did a run through yesterday. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I knew it would hit up sooner or later. :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAUNCHING THE NEW MAIN PAGE

Okay, so I'm going to momentarily begin work on getting the new main page up and running. There will be an in-use tag at the top of the page itself, but subpages will not. As long as that tag remains, I request that you DO NOT edit the WP:D&D main page or any of its subpages because I'm going to be moving and editing the various pages and links. I anticipate that this process will take about an hour.

If you see something with the new page that needs to be addressed right away, leave me a note on my talk page, so that I see the "new messages" notice as soon as possible. Messages left here will probably not receive a response until the project is done. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the main launch is done. I'm still going to be going around to do some various maintenance that is still needed for it to be fully ready, but you can start editing things that you think need it. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The initial launch is now 100% complete. Although over the next week I hope to add some periphrials (some sort of D&D barnstar, more fan userboxes, etc.), everything should be ready to go. If you find any links that I missed the lead to my userspace, feel free to fix them or let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed some more errors... as I said, there could be quite a few links to the set-up pages in my userspace for a little while. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I obviously don't understand the structure of the new page (unsurprising to me, however) as I just tried to add something to the "major tasks" and can't figure out why it doesn't show up on the main page. Once things get to a certain level of complication, my tiny brain cannot compute... --Craw-daddy | T | 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... firstly I'd point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/guide, where I put some editing help for just that kind of situation. Secondly, I'll take a look and see if I can locate what you added. Thirdly, it seems like you've been helping out a fair bit recently... maybe you should consider officially joining the project? It doesn't really matter, just a suggestion. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the trouble. Because the major tasks section is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/leftpanel, which is transcluded to the main page itself, the main page hadn't yet picked up your edit. When you edit any of the subpages that are transcluded to the main page, it might take some time for them to show up. Alternately, you can do a Null edit, and that should make your change appear. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance WikiProjects

Do you think that they should be merged into this one? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They actually predate this project.
That said, it might be worth discussing them becoming workgroups/task forces.
See Template:WPCMC and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Workgroups for how WP:CMC handles work groups. - jc37 10:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they predate this project, but the FR project has basically been closed down, Greyhawk has started to stall, and Dragonlance looks like it's in the same position as this project... too few members. That's why I mentioned if they could become a part of this one. Workgroups might work, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The workgroup idea has promise. It's good for "side projects". BOZ (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And it also allows for separate noticeboards/discussion pages, which can be watchlisted (to keep things semi-orderly), and separate (but merged) tagging and assessments, among other things. - jc37 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that tags, categories, and assessments should all be under one name... it seems like every Dragonlance article also has the D&D tag on the talk page, which just clutters up room. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a moment to check out the tags. Work group info is merged with WikiProject info... - jc37 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're discussing it... I think someone started to help me set up the Greyhawk project as a workgroup a month or two ago. Maybe a dozen or so D&D articles have the Greyhawk workgroup on the talk page template before I got bored and did something else. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... I hadn't noticed that Jc37. Thanks for pointing it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the people who have expertise in one of these projects would have expertise for all of them, so merging makes some sense to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Converting WikiProjects into task forces doesn't seem to improve the level of contribution, as far as I can tell. The primary use seems to be preservation of old discussions. I'm all for merging. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the modification I made on Talk:Al'Akbar. BOZ (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but I still think that just dissolving the setting-specific projects and using this one for all of them would make the most sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it let's just dissolve this project and let the RPG project handle it. shadzar-talk 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this project is still pretty active... just look at the public watchlist for all the recent changes. The three setting specific projects have pretty much ground to a halt... for example, look at the news section of Portal:Dragonlance. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that Gavin, but there is also the fact that there is no time limit to do anything on wikipedia, and some times real world events may delay certain thigns from getting done and even may grind projects to a halt. Including but not limited to, economics, massive amounts of new information that must be digested to see if it may alter articles, jobs, etc. shadzar-talk 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Gavin. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo, identity crisis!  :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it just seems all too similar to some things from the past. o.o;; Let's focus less on the other wikiprojects and like Boz, focus more on the articles and getting them fixed one at a time and not worry with tagging and such. If we are all the ones left doing anything, then the time to fix one article at a time will be enough and in time all things will come in line on their own. Heck Boz even got me to edit the WotC article against my will by including a typo in it, knowing I often fix typos as I read articles! shadzar-talk 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooo weeeee ooooo... MIND-TAKING!  ;) Seriously though, I think Shadzar, like me, is probably just a war-weary veteran, and subject to friendly fire once in awhile. ;) I agree with Shadzar on where our focus should lie, though. Drilnoth has been doing an excellent job so far in my opinion, and let's keep going in the direction we've been heading. If we can attract more people to this project, then the sub-projects may just get started again (you never know) so closing them now seems premature. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-removed indent-I hadn't thought of that, BOZ, and thanks for the compliment. I know I haven't been modifying actual articles much lately... I've really been trying to get the public watchlist completed, and it's already been immensely useful to me for identifying problem pages and such. I'm just about to start going on an assessment drive to look at all of the D&D articles and give them proper assessments, and then I hope to start working on the tags... one article at a time. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't merge the projects, should I add pages from other projects, such as WP:Dragonlance templates, into the public watchlist? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :) BOZ (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, but I wanted to make sure. I'll start working on that.
When I have time. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Kender

A massive amount of text in the article Kender has recently been modified. Could someone who knows more about the race then myself take a look at it? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kender I stopped bothering with that and any other article he got involved with long ago. I don't have the time to work on Gavinpedia. I come here to work on Wikipedia. So whatever changes were made are probably just because mediation was given up because nobody had time to devote to it except for one, so nothing was getting done lately about it. So it will likely just become an edit war to even bother with the Kender article. shadzar-talk 12:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Kender has been "Gavinized" and will likely remain that way. The version we came up with during the mediation was mostly to see what sort of writing would placate Gavin; I was never particularly fond of the results. In fact, Gavin originally wanted most/all of the writing to be quoted from sources, because any rewriting or paraphrasing is apparently POV reinterpretation by the editor, or synthesis, or OR, or whatever he's fond of calling something at the time. He wanted the whole thing rewritten from scratch, and that's what he's got. You can try editing it, but good luck with that. :) We started off with about 5 people in the mediation, and they dropped off one by one for various reasons... eventually it was just Gavin and me, and even Gavin started appearing more and more sporadically. At one point, I just posted my thoughts on one section, and there was never a response (even after I kept pointing to it), so I never did anything more and the case stalled, even after we tried to get more people involved. In reality, the best thing the mediation case did was to get Gavin to leave us alone for 6 months (after his 6 month reign of terror) so that we could actually get something positive done instead of fighting with him all the time! BOZ (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boz should be proud of his contribution to the article, as it is as much his hard work that resulted in a huge improvement in its quality as anyone else's. As at today, I am pleased that the unsourced content has been removed, and the over reliance on in universe perspective that blighted the article has been reduced substantially, and it is a lot more interesting to read about the real-world development of the characters as a result. Only the notability of the subject is still doubtful. However, I still think it is one of the better Dragonlance articles on Wikipedia: most of the others are in poor shape. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying it hasn't been improved; in fact, you are correct that the in-universe text has been mostly or entirely eliminated, and the article is properly cited as well. The article as it originally existed was no great shakes. I do agree that most D&D articles (and most fiction articles in general) do still suffer from lack of citations and overuse of in-universe text; if I learned anything particularly important from the mediation, those are two things that I have been hard at work trying to fix since then. (I got two articles to "Good Article" status within the last month!) Regarding the writing on Kender, I felt particularly constrained by Gavin's approach, and I feel that I did the best I could under those conditions, rather than doing the best I could have done if working unrestrained. Thus, my criticism of the final results you now see in the article. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, someone who knows more about this than I do should deal with the copyright issue raised here? Also, the fair use rationales should be updated, in particular there's really supposed to be one for each article in which the image is used (although, they're typically nearly identical, there are supposed to be one for each use). --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the bright side, Gavin hasn't started tagging articles again... the only D&D pages he's really modified recently, to my knoweldge, are Dan Willis and Kender. This is good, because if we just have enough time I think that we can clean up most every D&D article there is, but that probably won't happen if tags are constantly being added (sometimes for good reason, although sometimes they seem rather arbitrary and random). I also think that the {{notability}} tag could be replaced in many articles with {{primarysources}}, since that doesn't have the "veiled threat of deletion" as I heard one user call it, so it would give us some more time to clean the article up. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a thing about putting picture on wikipedia, unless it is still-life and you took the picture yourself. shadzar-talk 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added copyright information to the image and removed the tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there are any objections, I plan to start replacing {{notability}} tags with the {{importance}} and/or {{primarysources}} tags, because those are not automatic criteria for the deletion of an article if the issue isn't dealt with fast enough. This will allow the WikiProject more time to cleanup the relevant articles without feeling rushed or hopeless. If there are objections they can be discussed here and the proper course of action can be determined by the whole group. Note that if I do start doing this, I will specifically not remove any {{notability}} tags without either modifying the page to make such a tag unnecessary or replacing the tag with one or both of the substitutes. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class?

I can't quite figure this out: Is an A-class article better that a GA-class article? And does an article need to be GA-class to become A-class? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been terminally confused on that myself. :) I'm fairly certain that an A-class article is a GA-class that has been peer-reviewed or something to say that it's better than just a GA-class? Now that we've got a few GA's, we might want to look into what we can do to get some A's, and eventually more FA's. BOZ (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria for some explanation. Basically there should be some formal review process for an article to be rated 'A'. Of course, if you're going for an 'A' rating, it's probably close enough to go for an 'FA' rating that you might want to try to fix any last stylistic issues and go for the 'FA' rating anyway. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I quote: "For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.". So maybe when someone thinks that a GA-class article should be made into an A-class, we could list the article on the Class Reassessment section of the Announcements on the project page and actually discuss it on the involved article's talk page. I'll see if I can come up with a good image to use in the "Featured Content" section for A-class articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment/Importance tables

Shadzar, I see that you had just added additional tables into the right panel. While it is a logical change, the effect this had on the main page was, to be frank, horrible. Additionally, most all of the information that you had added can be accessed easily already; the tables consisted primarily of links to various categories, and the single table already on the main page already contains most of those links. If you think that there should be those additional tables, might I recommend using a subpage? I've undone your edit for now, but please feel free to discuss your reasoning for the change here so we can come to a conclusion. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games

I went and tossed the {{D&D}} template on everything in this category which didn't already have it, FYI. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll update the public watchlist. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya missed a few... I'll catch em. :) BOZ (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... thanks. I was in a rush to get to work on the D&D barnstar, so I guess that some just slipped through the cracks. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... wow. That's more than "some". Where were they? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. ;) It pays to check the contribs history! It looks like the rest of those were in subcats. Which reminds me, at some point we may want to check through the various categories and make sure all the articles are actually on board with the project. That'll take some time, so finish anything you've got planned first. :) I've tried hard to make sure everything has our project template on it, but there are probably still a lot more out there... but we're the shepherds looking for lost sheep. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, one thing I forgot to mention - I noticed that the list category items are not on the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're in their own section at the bottom. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your non-list comment, I agree. We do need to go through and find them... sometime. Right now I've been working on a lot of stuff, so that's lower on my list, but you can certainly start if you want to and I'll join in when my list is a bit more free (just take a look at my user page for my slightly-large list of goals). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I picked out a few more; I'll look for more soon. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a whole bunch of DL & FR novels articles as well. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added those to the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got some Greyhawk pages now; there are a bunch, and I'll get them bit by bit. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get those on the watchlist - looks like Gavin is on a tear again. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template, take 2

I've started work on making two navboxes which, when combined, would be comprehensive. Here's what I have for the "Gameplay" navbox, as opposed to the still-to-be-created "Worlds" navbox.

User:Drilnoth/navbox game

What do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me - but maybe I'm just not picky. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather have two navboxes or one giant one? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was on the other one? BOZ (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other one of the two navboxes I'm thinking of would be a "world" navbox (it's still under construction, that's why I didn't post it here). The one that you see here would be used for articles about Dungeons & Dragons, character building, rulebooks, companies, people, etc., and the other would be for specific creatures (I need to move that out of this navbox), deities, novels, locations, settings, unique characters, and the like. The single giant navbox was discussed above (I think that the discussion might be archived at this point, but I'm not sure). -Drilnoth (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The character races and classes section suffers badly form recentism. Maybe just having those oddities be their own section would be fine such as races, monsters, settings, etc and let people go from there to find things instead of trying to single out specifics. Because the settings section also has "others" which is not that good, nor is it helpful if you are trying to list them all. shadzar-talk 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goal with the races and classes was to have all "core" races and classes from all editions of the game. Is there a race or class in a core rulebook from before 3rd edition that isn't on the list? The simple fact is that newer editions have more options than the older ones. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I am unde5rdtanding what you say, and your inclusion of the setting specific Genasi, then you would need to include all setting specific playable races from each edition....that means just about every monster race.....Also your and my definition of "core" may be different than what is currently being used as with 4th edition ALL material is meant to be core, in that nothing stands alone from anything else and is completely interchangeable within the system. There is no such thing as just the 3 core books anymore. So it would be near impossible to have an infobox/etc include everything as it comes out over time. This thing need quick links to the most common things throughout all editions. Sadly that means there are really only 3 classes that are core to D&D (fighter/fighting men, mages, clerics), and only a few races as well. Remember elf was a class in one edition of the game...so to be fair to history it is really impossible to denote those thiings individually. That is why I just suggest a list of types of things, and then the articles they link to could expound on them for each eidtion, otherwise you would need a box for each edition and the 4th edition box would pretty much contain every D&D related article as "everything is core" in its design and intent of use. =O They did not make this easy for us to be unbiased towards recent events in regards to D&D. shadzar-talk 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point with the genasi; I'll remove them and the drow. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The D&D barnstar's done! You can see it on the WP:D&D main page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

FYI: [1] BOZ (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jeez. Wasn't he always doing the same thing as Gavin? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically. But mostly as a back-up, kind of follow-the-leader sort of thing. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I thought. Fortunately though, Gavin hasn't been doing much on the gaming front, and if JM was just backup then there shouldn't be much trouble. And if there is, we can try to politely explain to him that we plan on going through every D&D article and doing a FULL CLEANUP, and the addition or AfD nominations of more articles would actually slow the process down. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Notability Guideline

Wow. I just found this, and now I'm really going to try and work on creating a General Dungeons & Dragons Guideline for Inclusion in Wikipedia (or something to that effect). Maybe soon I'll open up a subpage here so that we can all discuss what should be in it... once we have a firm guideline (and maybe alert Gavin to it so that there can be some input from the opposing viewpoint), that might help us avoid large-scale disagreements in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Will Robinson ! Given the contentious discussions that have happened at WP:FICT (and other places), as well as various other discussions about notability in general (scattered around various talk pages), trying to create a "notability guideline" for D&D articles is likely to fail (and probably rightly so). The creation of a notability guideline for articles under any one specific WikiProject will be looked upon as highly dubious and self-serving to that WikiProject. There are these proposed notability guidelines for toys and games (with emphasis on the word proposed) that may be of interest to this WikiProject, but I think there are many editors that don't look kindly on the sub-guidelines for notability, thinking that they are trying to create "exceptions" to the general notability guidelines. The subject specific guidelines are those in the top right-hand box on that page, and a set of proposed guidelines are below those. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My plan wasn't to design exceptions, but rather to compile a list of pertinent guidelines and rules with some sample applications. Basically, it could be used to determine if an article should be created in the first place, but not to determine notability if there ever was an AfD. Thank you for the advice, Model B-9, Class M-3 General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Minor Tasks Section

I've reworked the minor tasks section of the main page so that it should be updated weekly, and so that it gives more precise goals. What do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Alert

Gavin has been adding Notability tags to articles again. I've been replacing them with Importance tags whenever I see them (hooray for the public watchlist!), but I thought that you might all want to know. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - a brilliant idea you had there. Thanks for catching those - no idea if he will be satisfied with the {{importance}} tag rather than the {{notability}} tag; they say essentially the same thing, although the latter has a much harsher tone to it. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment to his talk page. Also, the watchlist isn't my idea; I saw it at WikiProject The Simpsons when I was working on designing the new main page. So far it's made it really easy to catch bad edits by various people (I reverted blatant vandalism to Fighter (Dungeons & Dragons) thanks to it), but the credit should really go the WP:DOH, not me. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a good find then. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you beginning to experience the fun we've all had over the past year? ;) BOZ (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what fun you had even before now. Personally I think that Gavin is making it more difficult for us to add reliable sources by putting a timer on the articles, and I've told him as such. Any help on his talk page would be nice. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's one of those people who agrees with everything on this page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know any proper way of dealing with him; getting him to agree to mediation was the only effective method, and that just stalled him for several months. Every argument you, I, or anyone else I've seen has been deflated by his circular logic, so arguing with him has proven pointless. Even if you can somehow get him to see where you're coming from, he'll just change his argument around to something advantagous to his POV. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've had your fill of circular conversation. Oy vey. :) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Split into subsections for ease of readability-

Administration

NOTE: The following is simply speculation and, at this time, I do not want it to happen. I am simply stating a possible outcome of the situation. "If he continues like this, administrator intervention might be possible because he has disrupted the project when we were just about to start work. Maybe ban him from editing D&D articles?" -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the talk page archives here, you'll notice that there was a strong sentiment to take him to the Arbitration Committee rather than attempting mediation. I am extremely hesitant to jump into such a thing, but if he continues to be disruptive to our project and how we're trying to improve it, I think that's an option we may wish to explore. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would not want to need to do that, but I feel right now like I can hardly leave the computer because he'd pounce on all the articles I've been trying -honestly trying- to fix. That really can't go on for a week or more. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try over a year and see how you feel. :) BOZ (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine. We've already generated 1,481 words of non-encyclopedic text on Gavin's talk page, and that's in just one hour. 1,481 words that could probably have cleaned up three D&D articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Gavin's offline now... now is our time to strike! Clean up as many D&D articles as you can before time runs out! ;) -Drilnoth (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - good luck. :) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a topic ban for Gavin, take it to AN/I; but, as BOZ notes below, I don't have much net access at the moment and thus don't have the time required to read over the offenses. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding now even if you don't have much access... I hope that you get it back soon. Anyway, BOZ, take a look at Yeth hound (Dungeons & Dragons). Then look at it before my massive edit. It only took about half and hour, too; we can keep doing that IF Gavin lets up a little bit. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - it now looks as if I would have done it myself. :) Of course, it was pretty close already... BOZ (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske Couriano

One option, there is an administrator (Jeske Couriano) who felt both that Gavin was a problem, as was anyone simply removing the notability templates. If you explain to him what you have been doing, he might just see it your way and come help out. And then he might not. :) BOZ (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip; I've asked him. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he is bereft of internet for the moment. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points at the reason I reverted anyone wholesale-reverting notability templates -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really, Jarlaxle turned out to be Grawp? Man, that's a doozy. Is he still giving you trouble? If Jack Merridew comes back, I don't expect Grawp to let up on him either. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All he's doing now is whipping eunuchs into a frenzy against everyone who dared block him, so I don't think he's going to bother Merridew (at least for a little while). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Willis

The Dan Willis discussion just exploded again. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dan Willis dispute has been resolved. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, at least? ;) Only to be replaced by numerous others... BOZ (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... not just for now. Another person came in and, point by point, explained why Gavin's viewpoint was valid, and I agree. I had just needed a real go-through of all of the sources so that I could understand the opposing view. So, although logically I think that Dan Willis is notable, according to WP guidelines I now understand why he isn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For whatever it's worth, you may wish to note this discussion. (Scroll down.) - jc37 01:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kermit the Frog is not a fictional character? What? O.o shadzar-talk 03:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

For all parties involved (or not involved for that matter) I'd suggest reading (in no particular order, and with no insult, slur, or otherwise intended for any editor here, there, or elsewhere) this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons deities

The entire collection of the Dungeons & Dragons deities articles, including all the lists, articles and categories really need an overhaul. Most of the articles are ripe for AfD I am afraid and most, and lets be honest here, don't really need a page. I am going through all the pages here over the next few days with the goal in mind of making them easier to read, notable and combine where I can. If anyone has an opinion or a wish for thses pages, please mention it here. I am not sure what my ultimate timeline will be but I would like to have something in place in the next few weeks. Web Warlock (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was working on them for a time (you can see the results in Elf deities, Dragon deities, Goblinoid deities, Dwarf deities, Orc deities, Halfling deities, Gnome deities, and Giant deities), but I've taken a break because A) the work was starting to get a little tedious, and B)I was working on the new D&D main page project, not to mention that C) Gavin came back. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I noticed. In fact it was the work you did on the various sub-races that got me thinking of combining some of the others. Maybe a table like approach like what BOZ is doing for the all the monsters.Web Warlock (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... or maybe organizing them by setting, alignment, or something similar so that we can keep the full descriptions (that's why I did it that way with the demihuman and monstrous deities; a list wouldn't be able to contain nearly that much information). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. :) I prefer to see everything get its own page, but that's in a perfect world. In the interests of preserving information, combining the weaker ones into a more cohesive whole is probably the only workable solution. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be nice to have everything have its own page, but I think that merging, then working on adding references and expanding the sections, then splitting them back out would make sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am just one voice, and let me preface with saying again, I don't really like the game 4th edition to play, and don't like what it does to us here working on this project either. Just remember that "setting specific" died with 4th edition as the material is all made interchangeable now, so any article will need to represent that in some way without bias towards older edition. So splitting by setting shouldn't be a problem so long as each split group of gods states which are in 4th, and that the cosmology of 4th does not really separate even settings deities. (or we could all just ignore 4th edition and act like it never existed for the purpose of wikipedia? didn't think anyone would buy that one.) shadzar-talk 15:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shadzar, I'd be happy to just ignore 4th edition all together. ;) -Drilnoth (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) At the moment I have no particular plan other than seeing that these articles are going to be ripe for someone to start spamming tags all over them. I am not in favor of alingment, since that changes between editions (see Grumush. I am not in favor of editions, since that spans too much territory (all those 2nd ed FR gods), in the end it seems published settings (which I can point to for "real-worldlieness") might be the best bet. The issue of course becomes when do D&D gods end and Greyhawk god begin? I say keep D&D gods generic with information about gods in-general, and then point to the lists of campaign specific gods. Web Warlock (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do would be to maybe have the 3E-core gods separate somehow, and the Greyhawk gods on their own page with a link to the 3E-core page. For example, on the Greyhawk page, we would see a link to the 3E page for Cuthbert and Boccob, or whatever. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This came up a while ago. As far as I'm concerned the entire lot should be rolled into list of Dungeons & Dragons deities right now and spun out only if sufficient secondary sources are found which deal with the subject from a real-world point of view. There is basically no material at all in Elf deities of this type, for instance. I appreciate that ~10 articles full of fancruft is better than ~80, but I'd rather have one article with a potential for improvement to GA/FA than lots which don't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Still doing a lot of reading now. Web Warlock (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk articles

Hey there. I found a whole bunch of articles that had the {{WikiProject Greyhawk}} template, but not the {{D&D}} template. I started adding the D&D template to them yesterday, and I'm going to continue now, just FYI. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! All done... for now. Expect more soon (but not tonight)! 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, added them all to the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons&oldid=253109219"