Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Heh

Would this make a useful source for monster articles? :) [1] BOZ (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For verifying material I think so; it's an AOL site, so it does have some form of editorial oversight, and the author, Chris Sims, has contributed to "the 4th Edition Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide, as well as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide", although being that he works/worked (not sure which) for WotC, I'm not sure it would contribute significantly towards the notability of the subject, although it certainly wouldn't hurt either.(nevermind, apparently not) - Sudo Ghost 02:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For a while I thought they were the same guy, but they are apparently two different Chris Sims: "I am a dude who loves some D&D. In fact, I'm willing to say that I love it almost as much as the Chris Sims who actually works as a game designer, whose email I occasionally get. You can tell us apart because he has a beard, and only thinks about Batman sometimes." [2] BOZ (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed same name + same topic area = same guy, now I just feel dumb for assuming. That's exactly the reason why I don't like adding content to BLP articles, I'm worried I'll add content about someone else with the same name. In that case, I guess it would contribute towards the notability of a relevant subject, since they aren't the same Chris Sims, and I also guess I should look a little deeper than I did next time. - Sudo Ghost 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and I'm glad I did double check! When I have a bit more free time, I should check that out. BOZ (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have made the same assumption, SudoGhost. Don't feel bad. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we're talking about potential sources, I did come across a source called "Monsters are people too" found on this Discover Magazine blog entry. I posted it at Talk:Monster Manual, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it here too, if it'll help with any relevant articles. - Sudo Ghost 04:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting read - not sure how it will gell with article but fun nonetheless. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TSR Games/Gygax Magazine tempest brewing URGENT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadzar/TSR_Games

i have started an article with the information being present in my user area, but this needs some attention to work out and figure out what is going on and I have been away so long its best if someone else takes this and runs with it. shadzar-talk 02:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

While your enthusiasm for covering this is admirable, and I've seen rumblings of this on Facebook myself, I'm not sure it's ripe for encyclopedic coverage yet. I think keeping a draft article in userspace until it's covered better by reliable sources is probably a good way to go. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

that is why i am asking for help with it. i guess others can still edit it in my user area or copy it to put in wikispace alter.. or whatever it is called. already I have added little bits to TSR, Inc. (which were reverted as well the trademark related info needing citation that i was adding info for was removed with my edit), and Tim Kask pages to prepare and present information so others COULD watch and keep track. the problems that might arise might actually be news worthy is a family squabble turns into a copyright or even use of name problem. so at least it is in the attention of the wikiproject now, and people can watch and develop it as needed wherever since i am long out of practice using WP. shadzar-talk 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, and long time no see. :) If there aren't any reliable sources yet, with a big thing like this with such big names attached to it, it's only a matter of time. BOZ (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dragonlance characters

If you can add any additional sources to Raistlin Majere and Goldmoon, please do so. The merge/unmerge discussion is located on this talk page. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pool of Radiance (novel)

The article Pool of Radiance (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a book that doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:NB. One source provided that likely wouldn't be considered third-party.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Doniago (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Deprodded with a rationale; thanks for bringing the notice here. Please do a search per WP:BEFORE to see if you can identify more sources, which I believe exist, before deciding whether or not AfD is an appropriate next step. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And if we can't find sources, it could always just be redirected to the video game's article as a reasonable search term. BOZ (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2

Could someone please check this series of edits? This is a Good Article, so we need to make sure to maintain quality. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dec 13, 2012 Templates for Discussion

Just to let you know... {{Forgotten Realms Wikia}} is up for deletion. (here)

Is this something you as a project are planning to use, or is its sole transclusion all it is good for?

- J Greb (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunno... I don't think I've ever used it, and I don't know what we might be using it for. Is it for articles that have been copied to Wikia? BOZ (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the wikia templates are for ELs, and the only article currently using it is Faerûn. In theory, all of the articles in Category:Forgotten Realms and its subcategories could use it if there are articles in the wikia. - J Greb (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Converting articles

I have proposed a way to preserve content about D&D-related characters, items, monster, etc. at the sha' ir article. I would be interested to get some input from other project members as to whether this could be a viable way forward. We could have a more centralized discussion here if that would work better for the general case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment

Could someone check to see if this is an appropriate addition to this article? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynn Willis

Apparently game designer Lynn Willis passed away today. This article could use a ton of cleanup, and much better sourcing. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Usability of plot summaries as secondary sources

The last stages of a discussion if Caramon Majere should have its own article has led to another discussion, if independent sources that provide ONLY plot summary count as secondary sources with regard to establishing notability or not. I fear that the authors that have contributed there so far want to tighten the possibilities of establishing notablity for fictional topics further. Maybe anyone has ideas to contribute there? Thanks a lot. Daranios (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn good article nomination

Great news, everyone - it has been over a year since our last Good Article nomination, so let's see what we can do to make sure this one passes - Talk:Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn/GA1 BOZ (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Great news; this one also passed. :) BOZ (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) good article nomination

Great news, everyone - we actually have two Good Article nominations at the moment, so let's see what we can do to make sure this one passes as well - Talk:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)/GA1 :) BOZ (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am late to the party - it already passed. :) BOZ (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Table Titans

The new web-comic, Table Titans, has been endorsed by Dungeons & Dragons, and will feature official D&D products. Therefore, the article falls under this project's scope. Feel free to help expand it. JDDJS (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Need help at Drizzt Do'Urden

We have a new editor apparently experimenting with this article by removing large pieces of Drizzt Do'Urden. I could use some help there. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Always a good practice to apply sequenced User Warnings when reverting possible vandalism or even unexplained good faith blanking. I've reverted the latest change and applied a level one warning. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Kim Mohan

I just heard that, since working at TSR since 1979 and staying through the purchase by Wizards of the Coast, Kim Mohan has just retired. Wow, what a good, long career. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable online sources

IMO Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References could use some more online sources. The Escapist looks like it would be a good option, it's been around since 1995, and it's been averaging about two or three D&D-related articles per month this year. IMO RPGnet's regular columns would probably count as reliable sources, but we should probably include a big warning that this presumption of reliability doesn't extend to the reviews or the forums. EN World's doesn't appear to accept unsolicited third-party columns or reviews, but I didn't spot any specific information on their editorial policy (the front page news section is run by Morrus, the editor-in-chief / webmaster / site owner). Does anyone else have any suggestions for reliable online sources which regularly cover D&D or tabletop roleplaying games in general? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Novel plagiarism?

Don't know if any of these qualify as RS's, or if there is any reason to mention any of this on any Wikipedia articles at this point, but I'm noting it here all the same:

Exposé on author Tracey Alley by Alan De Smet
Tracy Hickman's response
examiner.com (cannot link directly to it)

BOZ (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty compelling, but I would advise waiting until a higher profile source picks it up. It's BLP allegations, since plagiarism is a crime, and should be given a very high threshold for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree completely. Probably needs some sort of legal action before it's worth adding to an article. BOZ (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Torchiest and HighBeam

I just wanted to give a big shout out to Torchiest. He has helped out in a big way over most of the past year by adding links from HighBeam to D&D articles and other articles. He added info to a whole lot of articles related to our project – see a sampling below – in some cases it was just a sentence or two, but in some cases it was quite a bit; he even used HighBeam to help get Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn‎ up to Good Article status. Several of the articles he worked on had no sources at all before he added to them, and many other articles had very little in the way of sourcing. He really went the extra mile to help out, so I want to say a big thank you to Torchiest! :)

BOZ (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Different editions, different games

I think the decisions by Hasbro-owned WOTC to keep multiple lines of D&D products for sale at once demonstrates that the logic I put forward here is more accurate than the comments at that time would indicate. I'm not sure there is anything to be done with this assertion at the present, but I want to point out that when one company publishes multiple varieties of a game at once, there's much to be said for categorizing each 'edition' as a separate game. Can anyone think of another game company that publishes multiple editions of a game, excluding the overlap while stock of the previous edition is on clearance? I'm unable to think of one. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You shot yourself in the foot with this line of thinking as soon as you tried to mix it with considerations of independence. The wikiproject is free to deal with each D&D edition as it wants, but that won't be the basis for a special definition of notability criteria.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It actually has to do more with the precedent in other areas of the encyclopedia that when fictional elements appear in multiple fictional works, they are more likely to be kept. That is, if a character just appeared in one movie, there's little point in having a character list or independent character article in most cases. When a particular character has appeared in multiple fictional works, the tendency to keep an independent article on that fictional element is stronger. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, no such precedent exists, not even for D&D-related characters/elements. As per WP:N, the only inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article is whether significant secondary coverage exists, when it doesn't, the character/element is covered directly in the work's article, or in a list. Sure, you can always find a few AfDs in which a stand-alone article was kept, but these were more the result of fans banding together and taking advantage of low participation in order to circumvent existing policies, in a perfectly uncollegial way. These remain exceptions highlighting the failure of the system (and of the closing admins) and not any kind of "tendency" or "precedent". By the way, most of these surviving stand-alone articles were ultimately merged or deleted in subsequent debate, negating your view of a "precedent". Note that this proposition is bond to fail if its only effect is to open a backdoor to facilitate policy violation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Broaden your horizons a bit and look at visual fiction--TV, movies, etc.--and you'll find the precedent, or whatever you choose to call it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and not to belabor the point, but WP:N is not a policy, and never has been. Although, it is a bit circular to see N labeled as a notability guideline, but that's far from the strangest thing you'll see on Wikipedia... Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With 4,304,977 articles in existence, some are bound to avoid detection, what establishes precedents are rules and guidelines. Because shit exists on WP doesn't mean that WP has to be shit. Thanks for the reminder about WP:N, actual policy is WP:NOTPLOT, and it even better illustrates my point.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Living Campaign

The treatment of Living Campaigns is woefully inadequate. We had a long discussion at Gencon 2013 about this, and many are not editors. I am not longer an active editor, maybe this takes me out of my hiatus. It really needs work, and one person on there is conducting a revert to every change. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that coverage of LCs is inadequate in this wiki; they deserve much wider coverage in D&D specific wikis. It's a topic of some minor importance which has been largely ignored by independent reliable sources. Did any of you at the GenCon discussion raise sources outside of Polyhedron/Dungeon/Dragon? I'd be happy to do some of this work, and I have stacks of sources from the above periodicals. These could be used to support such improvements, but would be insufficient by themselves to warrant such improvements. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Clean up proposal?

Given the current stream of non-notable articles being taken to AfD with the standard predictable outcomes for content that does not have third party coverage, does anyone have a clean up proposal that they would like to offer instead so that we can stop cutting and pasting our responses and have the project take responsibility for the articles under its banner? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think reorganization and reworking the existing content to reduce excess pages is reasonable, but who amongst us could do such a feat without having inhuman patience? I suppose I could rework the deities and such, but I do not really know D&D. A grand unified deity page would be too long to be effective, but surely smaller sections would be acceptable. Split up by letter? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your proposal. it looks like a good place to start. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent source

Just found a relatively recent independent source dealing with D&D: Of Dice and Men (Google books has an excerpt). Maybe this can be of help for some articles in the future. Daranios (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Daranios, that looks like a great source. I have been working with "Designers & Dragons" by Shannon Appelcline for a few weeks (and probably for a few months to come!) but that might be a good one for me to check out when I am done with that one. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I could use the available excerpt for Bard (Dungeons & Dragons) and Vecna in a small way. :-) Daranios (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Source?

For Satyr I found this in an archive on the ref, the page itself 404ed and the RS was a review of the article, but it points to "The Ecology of the Satyr: Taking a light look at Mr. Fun himself", by Gordon R. Menzies, an article for the AD&D role-playing game which appeared in Dragon magazine #155 (March 1990), pages 42-45". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)