Template talk:D&D books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Questions[edit]

  • Should the header for this campaign setting in the template be "Oriental Adventures" or "Rokugan", since Rokugan is the Oriental Adventures setting in 3.X? My opinion: Retain as Oriental Adventures (non-Rokugan content is included in the book as well).
  • Are City of the Spider Queen and Return to Castle Ravenloft source books (belonging in the template), or adventures (belonging in the adventure list)? My opinion: They are adventures despite their size.

Serpent's Choice 07:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Book of Exalted Deeds, 3.0 or 3.5[edit]

Should the Book of Exalted Deeds be in the 3.0 section or 3.5? Even though it was published after 3.5 came out, it does not have the This product uses updated material from the v.3.5 revision. line that other 3.5 books have. --StarGeek 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If you look through the rules, I'm pretty sure this is a 3.0 book. Mrobviousjosh

What about the Planetscape, Dark sun and Birthright settings, whay are they not included as bolded items?

  • Because no source books have been published for these (and several other) settings during 3.0/3.5, which is the scope of this template. Serpent's Choice 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

bias[edit]

this template looks like an advertisement for the current edition of D&D rather than providing unbiased information. since odler books exist and are not included in this list, and the evidence of a 4th edition, then this lsit has become too biased to be usefull. thus it makes all pages it appears on also bias to this incorrect information. this tempalte would probably be best renamed to a more appropriate name and header as per its contents, or it should include ALL D&D books, and not just those revolving around the current edition. shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but the title and contents are technically accurate. The current edition (3.0/3.5) is Dungeons & Dragons. The older books, 1st & 2nd edition, were Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. No opinion offered on the "Basic" or "Original" Dungeons & Dragons. --StarGeek 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
however there is no article for AD&D. it is jsut included in the whole of D&D article. though all games are similar as the editoins article states, they are not the same. and as present it doesnt really include anything but focus on 3.x material.
  • Core rules
  • 3.5 supplements
  • 3.0 supplemetns
  • Setting-specific
  • Other material
where are the sections for 4th, AD&D 1 and 2, OD&D, BD&D, etc? did these not also have books and were they also not D&D? this is what i mean that it is biased towards 3.x editions. therefore it isnt about D&D as much as it is about 3.x versions of D&D books. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shadzar's comments completely. There is definitely cleanup needed for the infobox, because right now it is useless. It is no possible to have a wieldy list of supplements when dozens are printed each year. My recommendations are that setting specific should list the different settings, not every supplement for each setting. Those can be covered in the setting specific article.

  • Core Rules: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, Rule Supplements
    • Rule Supplements would guide user to a list of books.
  • Setting-specific: Dragonlance, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Ghostwalk, Greyhawk, Oriental Adventures
  • Other Material: Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine, Adventure Modules, Other Supplements

I believe these changes would make the infobox a useful tool instead of a cluttered bundle of links. Input? Turlo Lomon 05:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i have never heard of Ghostwalk, but if it is a D&D campaign setting then sure. so long as ALL editions are represented equally in the template/infobox and the specific edition bias is removed. there isnt a need for every book ever made for D&D, that pretty much already exists over at http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow . what is needed is a quick reference IF possible with structure changes to 4th edition and core policy, that will show people where to look for the basic D&D material they may want further information on. i am a novice with wikipedia, but learning a bit daily and don't see any possible way i could edit this box without destroying it or i would put what you just stated into effect maybe we need to have some discussion on this from the WikiProject for D&D and see what the best infobox to create without edition bias would be? shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ok so i am working on one, but don't know what i am doing nor what it really needs any advice would be great. here is what i am working on so far with the above ideas... User:Shadzar/Template:D&D Books shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias?! Kythri (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yes bias. the current template focuses only on 3.0 and/or 3.5 books and does not account for all published books in all editions. with 4th closing in all those books will no longer be current and a new set of books and template will need to be worked up for 4th edition. therefore either this template needs to include all books for all editions, or just focus on books relative to all editions. D&D is not solely the current edition. while it is understandable that things are added from current product lines, it does not diminish the existance of older products in the line. example: if Monopoly has a template detailing its variants then it should include Star Wars, South Park, Family Guy, Nintendo, Batman and Robin, etc versions of the game. currently the books template looks like a current product list for the company and almost a catalog for buying rather than a detailed account of the prominent books in the entire history of D&D. in June 2008 this list will be reduced to a few current books, and the 3 Core Books release as all other will not be a part of the current edition. so how do you change the template to accomodate all editions instead of just the most current one using Wikipedia Standards and Guidelines? shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

it seems no one is willing to discuss or correct the bias so i added to the title that this list is only WotC books, as older editions have been neglected so it doesn't look like an advertisement for the latest product line until 4th edition comes out. shadzar|Talk|contribs 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend, after reading the above, that this template be adjusted to have just the core rulebooks, a link to a list of supplementals which is broken down by edition (and can include whichever ones are known and/or have articles already, with some sort of statement saying the list is possibly incomplete, etc. etc.), and links to sublists for each of the settings. This would reduce the template to a manageable level and divert the long lists to a more suitable location. Baron (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabatizing[edit]

I am going thru and putting these in ABC order for ease of use. Hooper (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Editions[edit]

A brief discussion has went on and is ongoing on the D&D project page. Let it be stated that we need other editions on here, but I know that I myself am not knowledgable enough to add them. But if someone can compile the books (lets only use WotC, and TSR when applicable, we'll note that and maybe add a link to 'list of 3rd party x edition books' to save room) and any articles we have on any of those editions/books then I'll be glad to add it so people will stop complaining about perceived bias and we can just do something about it. Hooper (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)