Talk:DL series

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

Reason for this pages creation[edit]

As DoomsDay349 seems to have been bold in turning into List of Dragonlance modules into something others did not want, and his article better seemed to fit the name of that article, I have recreated the article here at one of the suggested names before we reached total concensus for a name. He also added Template:Dragonlance-stub when the article I believe is far beyond a stub now as moved across here. Atleast some of the participants of Project Dragonlance seem to want to downplay the gaming aspect of the Dragonlance series against the novels, which is fine if that is how they want to run their project, however I believe the people who worked ion this material are interested in D&D modules, including the dragonlance ones, as gaming accesories. Possibly we should create our own D&D module project? - Waza 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be interested to know I've removed information from this article that is already presented in the main article. DoomsDay349 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion brough over from old Talk:List of Dragonlance modules[edit]

Name and Contents of this article[edit]

This is really two suggestions I have, but the decision on one will affect the other.

  1. Firstly I don't believe this article should be called a list. Lets agree to drop the "List of" off the name, but leave actual renaming until a concensus is reached on what the name should finally be. List of implies a list with just basic information. This article already has expanded descriptions with a section for several of the modules.
  2. "Dragonlance Modules" would be an obvious name but I do not believe this should be about all Dragonlance modules. The intial series that corresponds with the original Dragonlance Chronicles novel tilogy not all dragonlance modules generally. This is series of modules that goes together and is of particular note for several reasons beyond most other dragonlance modules created.
  3. My suggestion for a name is DL series of D&D modules
    1. It clearly defines a limited amount of sections for this article of a reasonable amount (There are 16 DL modules, plus possibly the 3 reprints as Dragonlance classics)
    2. It establishas a naming precedent that can be used for other D&D modules series. Not only DL modules like "DLA series of D&D modules" but other clasic series like I series or S series.
    3. Covers unambiguosly the original classic series. Will also add in DL15 and DL16 but this is not much of an issue as they are first two released after original series, and as two indepenadant anthology pieces are probably not large enough to have their own series article.

- Waza 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. I agree that we should get rid of "List of" as long as an article is about a single module series. I also think the names of the series should be the titles, I wouldn't want to do it by the series code. If we we're doing a page for A1-A4, you could just call the article Aerie of the Slave Lords. Looking at List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, this doesn't work as well with the dragonlance ones (and others) because of DLA, DLE, etc. Maybe Dragnlance (DL module series), or even just Dragonlance (DL). I would like to keep the names accurate yet small. When possible, I would like to use names like Aerie of the Slave Lords and The Bloodstone Pass Saga. Now, (DL module series) vs. (DL) as the disambiguator. We can add "module series" to each, but then it will be on all of them, which means it isn't strictly necessary. We had a big fight over this issue with television episodes a few months back, and it was decided Never Kill_a Boy on_the_First Date_(Buffy_episode) should be Never Kill a Boy on the First Date, but it wasn't really resolved if (Buffy) would have been better than (Buffy episode), so I guess we can do what we want. The purpose of disambiguation isn't to say what the article is about, that's what the first sentence should do, but if you have to disambiguate, then that part is up to the editors. I preffered (Buffy) to (Buffy episode), but I'm more torn about this. Anyways, there's my thoughts. - Peregrine Fisher 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is always going to be a tricky issue name. We are agreed going to get rid of "List of". Second point are we agreed that this article should just be about the original DL modules? because that will possibly effect the name of the article. I suppose it would be OK if it covered all modules, but I think there are enough particular comments that could be made about original DL series that do not necessarily apply to other Dragonlance modules, to warrant having them in their own article.
  • I agree (Whatever) in brackets should only be added to distinguish it from something else of the same name.
  • We need to try and come up with a name that un ambiguosly covers what we want covere in the article. If the DLx modules that were released then Dragonlance modules is fine, but as expressed above I would like this article to be a bit more specific.
  • I have no problems with unabigous names like The Bloodstone Pass Saga that won't be confused with something else being used. I just ment to standardise those that don't have an obvious name, what pattern shoulded be followed. (I would like to sometime soon get a group of module articles as a featured topic and Bloodstone or Intermediate series are the two I was considering for working on.)
  • How about Dragonlance Saga? this is how this series is refered to on the Aceaeum (Though the page is titled "DragonLance Series (DL1 - DL16)") and also is also the title used to refer to the series on the orange strip of DL5 to DL14.
  • If Dragonlance Saga is used then Dragonlance modules can be used for a catch all to all the other DL(x) modules, and have a note at the top refering to the original modules on Dragonlance Saga
Still throwing round ideas. - Waza 05:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just make this article about the DL series. There's a question of notability, and how many modules need to be merged to create something that's notible. I think if we do it by series, we can get keeps in any resulting AfDs. This is maybe a cynical line of thinking, but I feel it's what we need to consider when making D&D articles. Basically, how can we create good articles that won't be deleted. Series with one module can be merged to some "List of" if they're put up for AfD. I guess I'm leaning towards Dragnlance (DL module series). It has a bit of unneeded disambiguation, but it sounds better when you apply it to Basic (B) vs. Basic (B modules series). Although acaeum uses "Dragonlance Saga," and maybe it's a good name, it won't help us with a standard naming system that we can use for all modules. We need a system where any interested editor can go to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules and easily know what page to merge a group of not-that-famous modules to. - Peregrine Fisher 06:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is indirectly, I don't think this is really a matter of noteability but rather of the amount of referenced well written encyclopedic information produced. It's the approach not the destination that I think has been the problem. Create these combined articles to high standard and fully of material, and when they become too large no one will object to splitting them into seperate articles. The problem has been that the oppisite has been done, starting with many stubs and hoping they will build, rather than building articles tjhat are then split when appropriate. - Waza 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd go for "DL series of Dungeons & Dragons modules". That gives a clear indication of what the article contains without being overly long, and we can always create redirects for other vaguely likely looking titles. But I don't care that much: it's the contents of the article that's important, not the title. Cheers --Pak21 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears concensus is this article is just about the DL and not the other DL(x) articles. What I like about Pak21's suggestred title is is is clearly indicative. Though I do feel it is somewhat too long. Also it is some what ambiguos as DL series mean DL only or does it include DLA, DLE etc. My feeling is at the moment I am leaning towards Dragonlance Saga, not because Acaeum uses it though that is good supporting evidence. Rather because that is what the series itself seems to most frequently refer to itself as (on covers of 10 of the 14 modules). Yes this doesn't establish a model for naming, other than series with suitable descriptive names should use that name not the formula of "whatever is decided later". I don't think there is any rush to decide a name, now there is at least agreement on what the article is this can be finalised latter (but not too long as we definately want to get rid of "List of") - Waza 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people prefer the module code over the names at List of Dungeons & Dragons modules too. I prefer Dragnlance (DL module series), but if the consenus is against me, I won't fight it. Looking at the covers, they only use Dragonlance Saga for DL5 - DL14. Also, searching for "Dragonlace Saga" on google turn up the novels more than the modules. - Peregrine Fisher 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research to try and write a good into I am dropping the idea of Dragonlance Saga, however I would still like to avoid the bracket disambiguation style if we can. How about DL Dragonlance modules, it retains the info from PF suggestion and is in the style of Pak21's suggestion (but shorter). It allows for translation to other module series (we can substitue Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, etc or even just AD&D or D&D for generic series). It would also mean Dragonlance modules could become either a disambiguation page or a catch all for misc Dragonlance modules whose series don't have their own articles. - Waza 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name Part 2[edit]

Let's make a list of all the possibilities. I'm doing this during a commercial break, so I'm sure I missed some, but let's just build the list up with every possible good name. Maybe that will help. - Peregrine Fisher 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like if we put something in front of "Dragonlance," like DL Dragonlance modules, it would be most consistent to put it in front of all of them. I'd like to avoid this because I think names like Aerie of the Slave Lords would be really cool. On the other hand, it may be more correct. I looked at my copy of Q1, and its legal title seems to be "Dungeon Module Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits." I don't know if the later ones kept the "Dungeon Module" part, but the real name of DL6 is probably "DL6 Dragons of Ice" or "Dungeon Module DL6 Dragons of Ice." - Peregrine Fisher 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the format of titling appears to be DL# on the cover in the orange bar at the top only. On both the cover and the title page:
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
       Dragonlance
  Official Game Adventure
 -------------------------
     Dragons of Ice
      Douglas Niles
 -------------------------
They are not called modules anywhere in the official titling though this term is still used to refere to them in Dragon mag and in each other, for example Dragons of Mystery page 4. I have no problem with Aerie of the Slave Lords as this is a clear title for this series that does not need to be distinguished from anything else. Clearly Dragonlance is not available, though if the modules had not spawned numerous other products it may be the title that would have been used. Dragonlance modules is not specific enough.
I am still inclined towards DL Dragonlance modules. My second choice at this time is not on your list, but very similar to some there Dragonlance modules (DL series). - Waza 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Dragonlance modules (DL series). It would make for other nice names like Basic modules and One on one modules, which is about as good as those series can be named. B Basic modules doesn't sound right to me. Very few will even need the (X series), the word modules will disambiguate them. - Peregrine Fisher 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need Dungeons & Dragons in there somewhere. The main principle elucidated in WP:NAME is that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." (my emphasis). Neither "DL Dragonlance modules" nor "Dragonlance modules (DL series)" give the general reader, who's probably heard of Dungeons & Dragons, but quite possibly not of Dragonlance, a clue what this page is about. Cheers --Pak21 08:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the article is about should go in the opening sentence, not in the title. Although a lot of D&D pages don't follow this, pages like Landwyrm (Dungeons & Dragons) should be named Landwyrm. Also, think of book pages such as Dragons of Autumn Twilight, it wouldn't be good to call it Dragons of Autumn Twilight (Dragonlance novel). I think we all agreed that Dragons of Ice was the appropriate title for the single module page. Dragons of Ice (Dungeons & Dragons) or whatever wouldn't have been right. We're just doing the same thing with the whole series. The result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions was that TV episode pages shouldn't have (Scrubs episode) added to them if it wasn't necessary. This is basically the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PF, the title doesn't need to be overly descriptive. Individual modules are following the pattern "module name" eg Bloodstone Pass except where there is another more relevant article or disambig page at "module name" then they are "module name (D&D module)" eg Ravenloft is about the more prevelant campaign setting so the earlier individual module it was based on is Ravenloft (D&D module). I think where Pak21 quote applies is if we consider is it likely someone who comes to this article, ie probably someone looking at Dragonlance material anyway, needs the Dungeons & Dragons descriptor in the name. It is clear looking at Project Dragonlance there is a group of people that see Dragonlance primarily as a shared world prose fiction collection. The question is are there a number of them that are unaware of its D&D roots, enough to affect the naming of this article?
To throw oil and water on the fire. If this was a single module the name would clearly be Dragonlance (D&D module). Does extrapolation imply this should then be name Dragonlance (D&D modules) with an extra qualifier to put in the "DL" series name some where in the title (I won't list all the possible combinations now) - Waza 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents. Firstly, wow. How the hell did this talk page spawn so fast? I'm really glad that my AFD spawned a great undertaking like this. OK, so, there's no way you'll get me to read everything here, so I gather we're discussing the article name. I am thinking, simply, Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks. That way we can put in the Campaign Setting, etc. Then of course subdivisions for the broader categories of the DL modules, and a sourcebooks section. Thoughts? DoomsDay349 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More refs[edit]

Waza, you seem to know more about this "Project Overlord" stuff than me, so I'm thinking you may want to integrate what I found here. It has some stuff we could summarize, mostly "Dragonlance was invented by Hickman, based illegally off the Dungeons and Dragons game. Instead of suing him for copyright infringement, TSR hired him and started producing the Dragonlance module series, which quickly became nationally popular." I'm not sure if this is the "three modules featuring evil dragons," so if you know, that would help with integrating it. - Peregrine Fisher 05:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically know what I have just read today on page 4 of a copy of DL5 Dragons of Mystery. The link is very interesting but it sounds a bit of a corruption of what Hickman did with Ravenloft, something I do know about because I put a lot of work into getting that article to good article status. He sold this module that he had been working on previously to TSR just after the gave him a job, and then finished off while working for them. Hickmans official bio says he got the job at TSR after trying to sell them two modules, but there is no indication they were what became Dragonlance. I would guess they were probably I3 Pharaoh and B7 Rahasia, which hickman had already published independantly to a small print run. Maybe Dragonlance was already floating around at the time as an idea as well. I think the info from this link will need to be verified from another source, but very interesting. - Waza 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm too lazy to add the info now, but I think [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] may be useful. - Peregrine Fisher 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format change[edit]

I think we should remove the infoboxes, and replace them with something else. Depending on your monitor resolution and whether its a wide screen, this page won't look right. Maybe something like:

DL6 Dragons of Ice
The Dragons of Ice cover features a painting of a white dragon attacking sail powered ice boats by Larry Elmore
  • Synopsis:Characters begin at the ancient port city of Tarsis in the land of Krynn. After an attack by the Dragonarmies, the party is driven south to Icewall Castle, which is home to a white dragon and one of the legendary Dragon Orbs.
    After the Cataclysm, the seas receded from the port city Tarsis, necessitating ships that traversed the earth instead of the sea. This module features devices similar to the sails and roller ships featured in Philip Jose Farmer's "The Green Odyssey."[1]

What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can see why this is being suggested but don't really think it is necessary. I suggest instead we edit Template:DnDmodule to auto hide "campaign:" and "rules required:" as these will be identical for each of the modules in this series (except for DL11 which can be played a standalone game so doesn't really require any rules, but this variation can be delt with in the description) "Linked modules" is not need as they are now all on the one page and are all linked together. (the current groupings are just plain deceptive, there is subgroupings as shown per the DLC reprints, but the series was concieved and produced as a whole DL1-DL14, and DL15 & DL16 were added as antologies of interspersed adventures and direct sequals respectively)
Once these fields are removed the info box is no bigger than an image with a short description (and can be used without cover image) It allows readers eye to be drawn to key info (eg looking for authors or particular levels) and also keeps a standard connection with other module articles. - Waza 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like PF's version. Now bear with me, in case there's something I missed, I'm incredibly lost on this talk page, but I feel that the infoboxes don't work as well as this, and this way is nice and succinct. DoomsDay349 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made those three parameters optional, we can look at it and see if we like it. I'm not sure which way is best, but this module series seems to be our testbed for what they should all look like, so lets just look at the various ways. - Peregrine Fisher 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we need something definite, because I've just added every book that we have to do on this list, obviously no info but just a shell, and I'll get onto it. DoomsDay349 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things, we're going to make this page just about the 16 modules. It's going to be plenty large just with that. Looking at the version before all books were added: I think it looks better, but using firefox with a standard resolution of 768x1024, the description and synopsis are still about half as tall as the infoboxes. I'm not super happing with putting everything in bullets either, though. Maybe we should create an infobox that goes on the left for the module information, then put the images on the right as standard thumbs.
I'm much more in favor of making this page for all the adventures and sourcebooks first, and once we have the information consider splitting. I think it's smarter to handle this in one contained place for now and when the time comes begin splitting. DoomsDay349 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been taken over, making a new sub article[edit]

DoomsDay349 it is disappointing that you see laziness (could not be bothered reading the whole discusson) as an exuse not to pay attention to the opionions of others and have taken this article off in a totally different direction than what was intended. The one thing in favour of your direction is that it does suit the title of the article better than what was there before. I was hoping to await concensus on an article name before relocating the article we agreed we were trying to write (all this is discussed int he part you refuse to read), but instead I will do it now taking the info we want and linking from the relevant section of your article. You can then do what you want with this article - Waza 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the main page. Who should be disappointed in who? Thanks for the respect. DoomsDay349 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Green Odyssey". SFF Audio. Retrieved 2007-03-16.

Possible Edit War[edit]

I really hope this does not turn into an edit war but I am very tempted to revert DoomsDay349 last edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragonlance_modules_%28DL_series%29&oldid=117387023. He appears to be determined to hobble this article despite my responding to him on the main article talk page as requested above. That the information already exists in a topic on another page is no reason to delete it here considering

  1. This article is the specific article to contain the information (Discusses this series not all Dragonlance modules as it is placed to the intro on the other page)
  2. At very least reference are appropriate to be included redundantly (needed on each article that uses them)
  3. This article is clearly well beyond stab stage and well into a start class article
  4. This article is being actively developed (ie the sections on List of that have most edits are those that became this article)

I am walking away from my PC for a while now but I heope this can be resolved rather than by an edit war. - Waza 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the edit is, I see now, quite wrong, quite wrong. I do not recall actually stubbing the article with a tag...but that is beside the point. I realize now what the point is and I agree that the info should be here and not at the master list. I'll confess to you I was perhaps slightly angry over the situation, and I think the both of us may have had reason to be so. So I say let bygones be bygones, and let's try to do something with this articles! My only thing is, I don't want to see such a big and interesting project grow stagnant, that's exactly why I began all these changes. So if we both agree to work hard on this I have no problems with the changes, so long as the both of us have a fair say. DoomsDay349 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do understand your concerns about some articles that seem to be created as stubs and stay there. I agree it is a good thing that people make a commitment to expand articles once they are created, though we may disagree on what should be done if someone doesn't. While I can assure you that while I have probably created articles in the past that I am sure have remained stubs to this day, I have just had a look at some of my earliest edits on wikipedia were new article creations that have been edited into sunstantial articles at the hands of other, including Peter Jensen, Tim Costello, Robot (Doctor Who), Kingmaker (board game) and Judges Guild. Also my current interest in bring D&D modules to significant articles is demonstrated by my recent work on two articles particularly. Dungeons & Dragons, which is we are still working on getting to featured article status, I have been pushing along adding substantial particularly in the area of references (more than tripled general references) and inline citations (from very few to over 90) over the last two months. Ravenloft (D&D module) which I took from a start class article early this month to good article status. Ravenloft particularly I wanted to develop as an example to what could be done for other D&D modules, as many articles on them are just stubs or maybe start class. While this article would not be finished overnight, there is substantially more information than on the single Ravenloft module, I believe this is an important series in the history of D&D modules and something I am committed to doing some work on over the next few months. - Waza 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the editors working on this actually own the modules?[edit]

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out who painted what. This page says Larry Elmore did Deceit, Ice, Light, Mystery, and maybe Flame. Another identifies Keith Parkinson for Desolation. It would be nice to know for all of them. I'd like to add cover and interior credits to each. - Peregrine Fisher 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't own them. I want to so ridiculously badly but I don't have the money. I'm still financing my novel collection. I might be able to ask around on the forums (I spend a good deal of time there), but I'm unsure when I'd get an answer. DoomsDay349 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have access to all of these except the 1999 & 2000 reprints. I have DL11 in front of me at the moment - Cover Art: Jeff Easley - Interior Art: Jeff Butler & Diana Magnuson. Don't have time to go through them all now as about to go out, but I will get the info for you over the next few days. - Waza 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have it covered. - Peregrine Fisher 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you're willing to sell those? XD *sly grin*. I have to ask :) DoomsDay349 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded them all using bittorrent. If you happen do that sort of thing, it takes a couple of hours. - Peregrine Fisher 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find a copy of the 15th anniversary version? From the review I read it was substantially different to the others. Also one off comment, you may want to check on the legality of these copies, I will leave that up to you and that is the last I will say on that. -Waza 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The versions I found are the originals. It's illegal to download them, but as far as wikipedia is concerned, the information I add is unaffected by this. The information is, and always was, owned by WotC, and we just have to be sure to not infringe on their copyright with the content we include in this article (and talk pages). What would be a wikipedia no-no is if I were to include a link to the .torrent file, which I know not to do. I've done a lot of work with fair use and copyright issues on WP, and while downloading it may or may not be moral, adding information from it has no legal effect on wikipedia. Just thought I'd explain it because copyright law is pretty interesting, and comes up alot when editing fictional articles on wikipedia. Basically, what shows up on wikipedia has to be legal; what editors do outside of it has no effect. - Peregrine Fisher 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

I like the module infoboxes, but as I said earlier, they aren't going to look right on certain monitors at certain resolutions. It looks pretty good at 1024x768 with Internet Explorer, which is the most common resolution (56%) and the most common browser (80%). Now, wikipedians use a lot of high resolutions combined with Firefox (which uses a small font or something), and it isn't going to look right in that situation. If we ever wanted to get this to good article status, it's going to have to look good to them as well. So, we either get rid of the infoboxes, or we add information to the left (text) side of each entry. Longer summaries would be good, but that would require actually reading each module, which is a bit farther than I'm willing to go. The easiest thing that jumps to my mind is a "Credits" section. It's encyclopedic, and if it's bulleted, will take add a lot height. I'll add one to the first module to see if we like it, if we don't, I don't mind if its removed or reformatted. - Peregrine Fisher 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be looking to expand the information on the left. This may be a process that takes a few months to work through all the modules, but I don't mind that and I don't think others will either as long as the article is not left for months at a time without any progress. What should also be done as well as reading the module is look for more external references, reviews, books on history of dragonlance and D&D, etc to provide some critical and broader information about each module. (Things like the TARDIS reference you put in are great) Give me a week or two to fill out one or two of the modules as examples of how the rest will go and if it still looks no good we can change it the.
Getting to good article staus is time consuming. It too 3 weeks to get Ravenloft (D&D module). I really did ravenloft as a test to show I could get a D&D module to good status and also to provide an example it could be done. What I would like to do now is get a few more to good articles and possibly a featured topic on a D&D module series, then go back to Ravenloft and try and make it a featured article. I was considering working on H series as a good choice to try for featured topics it is one of my fav's and not too long. While longer the DL series could be a series with more external referencable material available, making it easier in a way. - Waza 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with waiting, but does that mean you don't like the "Credits" section? Anyways, as far as external sources and reviews on the individual modules, I would love to find that kind of info. The problem is that I tried during the AfD for the three original module (Ice, etc.) and wasn't able to find much. I'm actually really happy with what we have so far. The DL series is a lot more famous than I thought it would be, because it's what spawned the much more famous novels. There must have been some magazine that reviewed modules back in the day, but all I know about is Dragon #91 and a couple of other issues of Dragon. I'm getting the feeling that we're close to having all the external sources we'll ever have.
Speaking of Ravenloft, I love what you did with the article, but did you nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates? I'm trying to get Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) to GA status, and it's not easy (it has 46 reliable external refs!) because people are really nitpicky. If you haven't, I'm interested in helping you get it through. - Peregrine Fisher 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Ravenloft (D&D module) was nominated and passed as a good article through Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Yes it's not easy, to prepare I re-read the article several times and tried to be picky about it. I read Wikipedia:What is a good article? and tried to be picky and think how others might think about the article and improve when needed. I made notes on the talk page about how to impriove it, and did them. I am being even more rigorous about this on D&D Talk. I tried to use similar principles on Ravenloft but did not dicument my thought processes as well. Then I nominated it and it passed. That's basically the story. I did not think I would find as much referencable material as I did on Ravenloft, I thought at first it would only ever be a good article at best, but with what I found I think it can be turned into featured. Who knows what info will be found about these Dragonlance modules? - Waza 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What has been done on DL1 by now is more than enough to cover IE at 1600x1200 and still look good (No large white space caused by the info box). I feel this is a good example to justify leaving the info boxes, but lets wait for a few more before making a decision. Also the article is already 41KB I think an eventual split is almost inevitable with the size this article is projecting to be. Lets make sure they are ready for it before it happens, but I think we will see individual module articles before too long. -Waza 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Back to where we started. I started fixing up Against the Giants. I guess I'm a bit flighty. - Peregrine Fisher 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 or 16 in the Series?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion on the numbers. The original run of the Dragonlance storyline was 14 modules (12 adventures plus DL5 sourcebook and DL11 wargame/campaign accesory.) This was a complete series that was designed as the full story of the War of the Lance punblished from 1984 to 1986. DL15 & DL16 were both published in 1988 and are anthologies with short adventures related to this storyline. After something of a gap. They were not originally planned as part of the series. Though at various times the series was planned to extend to 15 or 16 modules during it's publication, that was not these two modules but just a changed repackaging of the story told in DL1-14. For this reason I will revert last changes to that state 16 modules between 1984 and 1986. I guess it could say 14 module story plus 2 extra's between 84 and 88, but that would be just as easy to change to from the reverted.

Sounds good. I became a little confused. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

No time to integrate this now, putting here for future reference:

  • http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=964 - Shadow Sorcerer video game based on DL3 & DL4 - Waza 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://au.pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539300p2.html -SS very different from predecessors, but still not good. Like a RTS. - Waza 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a good index of White Dwarf with several review of DL modules, now just need to track down the issues:
    • WD67 - DL2, DL3 & DL4
    • WD70 - DL5
    • WD78 - DL11
    • WD86 - "Open Box Extra: Dragonlance" - I have this one, missed it because it wasn't in the reviews column, is a review of the 14 module series as a whole
    • WD91 - Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home: AD&D Dragonlance
- Waza 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:World of Krynn module cover.jpg[edit]

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (just that nobody updated the rationale when the content was moved from List of Dragonlance modules to here) --Pak21 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DL12 Dragons of Faith.jpg[edit]

Image:DL12 Dragons of Faith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DL6 Dragons of Ice.jpg[edit]

Image:DL6 Dragons of Ice.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DL7 Dragons of Light.jpg[edit]

Image:DL7 Dragons of Light.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dragons of Despair module cover.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Dragons of Despair module cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with individual module articles[edit]

Most of the Dragonlance modules are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. As such, the following articles should be merged here: World of Krynn, Mists of Krynn, Dragons of Triumph, Dragons of Truth, Dragons of Faith, Dragons of Glory, Dragons of Dreams, Dragons of Deceit, Dragons of War (Dungeons & Dragons), Dragons of Light (Dungeons & Dragons), and Dragons of Ice. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you want to merge them into the "The DL Modules" section? I found two independent sources for Dragons of Glory, so I believe that one should be removed from the merge suggestion. BOZ (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be the appropriate section. What sources for Dragons of Glory did you find? Would you mind adding them to the article? Neelix (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added them in 2010, with citations. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources is not generally considered significant coverage; it's certainly not too much to be merged here. Do you know of any other reliable, secondary sources for Dragons of Glory? If not, I would recommend it be merged with the other articles. Neelix (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is insufficient coverage for a standalone article, as this is a good start and it should be encouraged to grow from this point. I don't know of any other sources at this time. BOZ (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't encouraging the article to grow to include more reliable, secondary sources if we simply leave it alone; you are one of the most prolific editors of Dragonlance-related articles, so if you don't know of other sources to add, it's unlikely that other editors do. If we can't find more reliable, secondary sources, this article should be merged here along with the others. Neelix (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other people can and can't find, so I will have to continue to disagree. Two reliable independent secondary sources should be sufficient for a standalone article, even if that is less than ideal. You can add a tag to Dragons of Glory asking for additional sources if that is the issue. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what significant coverage means. Per WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Significant coverage is measured on a per source basis, not in terms of the total amount of coverage over all sources. And the guideline simply states that multiple sources are required. I think two sources is sufficient. —Torchiest talkedits 14:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your understanding of "significant coverage," Torchiest. I think I had been misunderstanding the meaning of that phrase as it is used in the general notability guideline. I am content to remove Dragons of Glory from the merger suggestion. Am I clear to merge the other articles listed above? Neelix (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would be fine with merging any article that only has a single source, with the allowance that it could be brought back if additional sources were found. But I'm hardly the end all be all expert on D&D article sourcing. I'm mostly like the mechanic around here. :) —Torchiest talkedits 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons of Faith and Dragons of War apparently have reviews in independent gaming magazines, but I don't (yet) have access to those sources. As for the others, I have no idea. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DL series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DL series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DL_series&oldid=1213536614"