Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Notability

After the main page is reworked we should make a list of what constitutes notability for articles to prevent the duplication of every concept in the game. Which monsters, NPCs, etc? Someone should also notify the Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk projects. Figure out the parentage of the projects. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Citizens and their entimology would be an interesting sub-section for each campaign setting. For example, Mordenkainen was the character the Gary Gygax played in greyhawk, and still exists in the oficial campaign world as a background political figure and a member of the Circle of Eight. As for monsters, noteability should be a small section linking historical monsters to their real mythological counterparts (Gorgons, Dragons, Medusa, etc.) Piuro 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• As for NPCs, I feel that those with ties to specific settings are beyond the scope of this wikiproject, and should be dealt with by the setting wikiproject, should one exist. Characters that I think WP:D&D have jurisdiction over would include iconics (Jozan, Krusk, etc), the characters from the D&D cartoon & both movies, and any others without specific setting ties.--Robbstrd 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Campaigns are listed as children-projects of this, and this would be a good place to list a standarization. Piuro 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was meaning more along the lines of criteria that must be met to be considered notable. How many modules/books/accessories should DemonX appear in before it is notable to the whole of generic (A)D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Iconics only. So Drizz't is (sadly) okay, but Dispater, despite having a good portion of a chapter to himself, isnt. Piuro 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Drizz't is a FR character, so would be fall under the authority of WP:Forgotten Realms. I think Dispater (& other archdevils & demon lords) are definitely notable enough to include, as they've appeared in a number of editions, settings, & products. I don't think we should start marking long-standing, lengthly articles for deletion just because the subject isn't considered "iconic" enough.--Robbstrd 21:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Monsters

Dire rat, I think, should probably be merged to Dire animal.--Robbstrd 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I brought that up in Dire Rat's talkpage. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that now, and clean up the dire animal article in general. J Milburn 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Going into the detail that I like to, this is looking like it is going to be a huge article, with perhaps 100 seperate citations. I am working on a new version in my sandbox, if anyone wants to take a look, or give me a hand. J Milburn 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And Dire Animal should probably be merged into some kind of prominent monsters article. Piuro 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with merging Dire Animal into a larger article. There are a lot of these general categories of monsters (including "celestial creatures", "lycanthropes" and "vampires") which can modify a large number of other monsters. I think that if you added them all together you would get an article that was excessivly large.Big Mac 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, someone went around tagging a few dozen monster articles with the Forgotten Realms creature template. Seems we don't need that for every creature to ever appear in the FR, just the ones who significantly affect the world in some way.

I've been removing articles concerning monsters from the MAIN Monster Manual from that category. I got Behir and Dire animal, gimme a list of any others and let's tell this guy that adding the FRCat is unnecessary. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[1]. I entirely agree that adding the FR cat for things in the MM is unnecessary. Cheers --Pak21 13:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Any way to discipline this anon while we're at it? I'm lucky I caught the two earlier pages when I did. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would urge you to assume good faith. Leave a civil message on their talk page explaining why you think their actions are unnecessary and revert their edits with an appropriately civil edit summary. Cheers --Pak21 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm being civil with edit summaries, I'll add a message after the next one. But, giving each of the edite above are (usually) within sixty seconds of each other, I'm a bit concerned. EDIT: Done with the notice on the talk page AND with the monster articles. I missed one, I'm sure of it. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's fine for a mainstream monster article to have a campaign setting category as long as A) the monster is particularly notable in that setting (such as illithids in Spelljammer) or B) the article includes a section on the monster's role in that specific setting (such as "Drow in Ebberon").--Robbstrd 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say add the category if it's unique/important in that setting, but don't add the category if there is a section addressing the creature's role in a specific setting, and said role isn't significant enough to warrant the category (example, add "Eberron" cat to Changeling or "Forgotten Realms" cat to Drow, but don't add "Eberron" to Griffon or "Forgotten Realms" to Gibbering Mouther). -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur for specialty monster that are specific to a campaign have a setting cat (Thri-keen Dark Sun), but most are general use (Illithids). Sooner or later all monsters will become general anyway, so many noting them where they originated or are most prominent like kenders to Dragonlance. 13:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While being bold on Friday and cleaning out some categories, they were exactly the criteria I used, so I agree. I may go through Category:Forgotten Realms creatures sometime today and do the same. Cheers --Pak21 09:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll start cleaning out the FRC cat. EDIT: Done. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• First off, these suggestions are just that--not all members of this Wikiproject agree. I, for one, disagree with the removal of campaign-specific categories from several articles. If someone has taken the time to write about that creature's role in a particular campaign setting, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to leave the category. After all, if someone is interested in a creature's role in a specific setting, the easiest way for them to access the info is by looking for that creature on the setting category page. I plan to revert some of those edits.--Robbstrd 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to - I'm not perfect, after all, and I'm not going to revert you if you feel there is a valid reason to leave the category in. And, by the way, my name's not Jesse. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry--the one letter threw me off.--Robbstrd 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments made on the 5th of November about Illithids being general creatures. Some general monsters have been used in different ways in specific campaign settings. Illithids may be found in many other campaign settings, but they are a major part of the Spelljammer background and need to have the Spelljammer cat. If I ever see it is removed, I will put it back on again unless someone explains to my satisfaction exactly why it shouldn't be there. I'm sure that other people would have similar disagreements over other monsters that they think are associated with other settings.

I think it would be better for people to talk about removing monsters from categories before doing it. D&D is a complex subject and it is impossible to know everything about all its campaign settings. If something has a Forgotten Realms cat and you think it shouldn't then it would be better to get the FR experts to look at it. I'm sure that some things are mis-classified, but there could be a very good reason why a category is there.

Some general monsters had their origin with specific campaign settings. I think it is ok for them to keep a campaign specific category even after being general monsters. I think that fans of certain settings would find it easier to find the monsters with the category.

Can't we just put all the core monsters into a "core D&D" category? That way if a monster from a previous edition of a specific campaign setting becomes more general, it can be found from both category pages. People looking for it from both ends would find it.

Wizards of the Coast has looted out of print TSR settings and brought some of their monsters into the core rulebooks. If Wikipedia starts to boot those monsters out of their specialised categories then the out of print settings are going to slowly get eaten away on Wikipedia. This wouldn't be a true picture of the facts. Wikipedia articles should show the past as well as the present. If monster "generalisation" happens to previously specialised monsters, then the only way to help people find the monsters associated with settings would be to create a series of "monsters found in the <instert setting name> campaign setting" articles. At the moment, I don't think those sort of articles are necessary, because the categories do the same job.

While we are on the subject of campaign setting - what do people think should be done about special variants of common creatures? For example: Moon elves and sun elves seem to be specific to Forgotten Realms, but are a subrace of elves. Should they be part of the elf article or should they be in separate articles? And all elves are together then is it therfore logical to add the Forgotten Realms category to the elf article? My guess is that things like this need separate articles so that they can be given campaign setting categories to match.

Big Mac 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"I think it would be better for people to talk about removing monsters from categories before doing it.". My principle on this is to be bold: if I screw up, I have no problem whatsoever with people reverting the changes (as they have done). Certainly, Dungeons & Dragons creatures is/was heavily populated with Dungeons & Dragons extraplanar creatures and Dungeons & Dragons fiends which I see no reason whatsoever for keeping, referring in particular to Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories: "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory". Cheers --Pak21 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Userbox

I've noticed other projects having their own userboxes, and am wondering if perhaps we should have one. I'm going to work on the basics (probably borrow the Template:User Dungeons & Dragons design). Suggestions on the userbox would be great. I'll work on it on my talk page, and suggestions could be left there. --Everchanging02 08:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My Userbox ideas are below. Please let me know what you think. --Everchanging02 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not having heard anyhting more on changes, where should which one be saved (so that members can utilize it)?--Everchanging02 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

D&D Template

Variant #1

D&DThis user is a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons.

Variant #2

D&DThis user is a member of WikiProject D&D.

Could we make the left box just "D&D" in black? Also, maybe a black border, with white fill and black text in the box on the right. - Peregrinefisher 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Im completely remaking this to fit more with the theme, don't worry. Piuro 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quasi-fixed. Looking into the borders stuff. --Everchanging02 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And more-fully fixed, although revamped. I don't quite like the Userbox template, since it likes to continue on the same line, but I'm not sure how to add a border to the other format. I can look into it, but whatever works works, I guess. Let me know. --Everchanging02 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIAS

We should strive to remove from the articles on general D&D the bias towards 3rd+ and d20 system and make a more neutral approach to all things surrounding the game mechanics. Either give each article a section based on the edition, or just remove the edition specific content and give a general overlook on them. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I think a section on previous editions should be included where applicable, I feel that the main thrust of articles should be on the current edition, whether it's 3.5, 4.0, etc. Wikipedia loses much of its value if it isn't kept current. After all, how useful would an article on the United States be if it was written chiefly from a 1979 perspective?--Robbstrd 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also remember we have less to work with (Legally) if there we don't focus on the current version. See the main D&D talk page. Piuro 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't just use the latest edition because then it turns the articles into advertisements. By having information on all editions where applicable it can hold better to be encyclopedia content rather than a commercial for the newest edition. Not to mention the newest edition is NOT the only version still played. shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, D&D has a 30+ year history that should not be ignored. I'm fine with a bias towards 3rd edition, but not at the expense of pertinent info from previous editions that has yet to carry over. BOZ

The problem with giving specifics on any edition is when it changes you will need to update every page. Also the OGL (WotC) and GFDL (Wikipedia) licenses are incompatible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely, there isn't much that changes from edition to edition, when talking about, say, monsters? It would only be the mechanics for a lot of things that would change, and we won't be including them? J Milburn 11:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the 3.5 is the currently supported & canon edition, I do think that a bias towards it is probably deserved. Does that mean that information from old editions should be discarded or ignored? Certainly not. It may require a caveat (for instance, many topics regarding the planes will be differ significantly from earlier editions), but the history of the game is far more encyclopedic than turning WP into a source book or heaven forbid an advertisement. --mordicai. 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia articles should feature the most up to date information (which in the case of D&D would be 3.5 edition), but if things have changed over time (i.e. if 2nd or 1st edition AD&D or D&D did things a different way) the article should always also give the older information as well.

One example of changing information are the gods. Gods are occasionally created or destroyed in products. If a god's status changes it would be good if the in-game year of the change could be listed and the older information given below the current information. I think that originally there was no such thing as an "intermediate deity" (just "minor" and "major") and that gods were shuffled up and down a bit in the 2nd edition of AD&D. Some gods have also had their alignment changed.

However, I would make an exception for information which has specifically been changed in erratas. Wizards of the Coast have a lot of erratas for current and previous (TSR) products. I think that any Wikipedia articles should follow the information in erratas if they exist (rather than products with misprints).

If different D&D sources disagree on specific facts then this should also be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Although care will need to be taken to work out which article is incorrect as this borders on opinion rather than fact. I would tend to trust D&D products that are closer to the source material.

(Here are a couple of examples of disputes within D&D: One Forgotten Realms product (I don't know the name) places the Rock of Bral (a Spelljammer asteroid) in the Tears of Selune, but The Cloakmaster Cycle of books (Spelljammer books) instead place it in a crystal sphere called Spiralspace. In this case I'd support the Spelljammer material. However I've been told that the Spelljammer material about Shou Lung conflicts with the Kara-Tur campaign setting and in that case I'd go with Kara-Tur products.)

Big Mac 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Game Mechanics

Also we should decide how much game mechanics is needed and how much relates specifically to D&D editions. Breath Weapon for example defines certain monsters which have them and there effects. We should prevent from removing the need to purchase the books to play the game and be as general as possible in the game mechanics as per WP:NOT in respect to instruction manuals and game guides. Most notable ones of course should have a page (if enough general information can be given without superceding the need for the purchase of the books), but others should be small ideas to introduce the particular mechanic but not give details on all aspects of it. Feats for 3rd edition, THAC0 for AD&D, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that game mechanics should not be overly detailed, nor should monster descriptions include things like hit dice, base attack bonus, etc. Wikipedia should not be a replacement for the Core Rules, SRD, etc. IMO, D&D wikipedia articles should focus more on "fluff" than "crunch."--Robbstrd 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I completely agree, and I have tried to do that on my own articles. All description and non-mechanical metagame information, nothing mechanical. J Milburn 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Breath Weapon article has chenged since you brought this issue up but it looks fine to me. Although it does mention the breath weapon type and shape it doesn't give the exact size of a cone or the amount of damage it does. The fact that D&D dragons all have different types of breath weapon is a feature of how they are implemented in D&D. I'd say it is definately fluff. However, you could argue that Breath Weapon should be merged into an article about all D&D dragons (with this page becoming a redirect page). I know that Draconians (from Dragonlance) have breath weapons, but they are dragon spawn. How many non-dragon monsters have a breath weapon?Big Mac 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Hell hounds have a BW. I'm sure there's more. Isn't there a wolf that breaths frost? Anyways, I made the BW page a while back because the term was used but not explained in the main Dragon page. The Dragon page was pretty big, and I didn't see a good spot for it, so I created a new page. I've since moved all the specific dragons off to pages like List of Chromatic dragons so it could probably be merged. The specifics of what dragon has what BW is now in the List of XXX dragons pages so it could be omitted. - Peregrine Fisher 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

The to-do list linked to at the top of the page is a general one, and not D&D specific. Do you think it could be re-routed to a subpage with stubs, requests, wikification and the type, with D&D specific articles? J Milburn 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have added a couple of things myself. Delete them if I have done wrong, otherwise, add to it as you find things! J Milburn 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Books and Lists and Templates, oh my!

We should come to some consensus about how to categorize the books, and what to include in templated boxes on appropriate articles. The current template (Template:D&D Books) is only 3rd edition material (except for the link to pre-3E modules), makes no distinction between 3E/3.5, and is woefully out of date. Campaign-setting material is handled inconsistently, and no such box exists at all for older material. Associated lists aren't any better at the moment, really. My suggestion is as follows:

1. Put the lists in order.
   1. 3E/3.5 books. This does not include modules (covered by the extant list for that material), nor does it include any campaign setting info, although it has links to the appropriate other lists.
   2. 3E/3.5 modules. As current.
   3. Pre-3E (or individual lists by edition ... consensus needed) books. As the 3E/3.5 list, but for older material. I prefer having a single list here rather than splitting, in the manner that the modules are currently handled.
   4. Pre-3E modules. As current.
   5. Campaign Setting product lists, for each that deserves one (not Ghostwalk, for example). Only one list, not split by edition, although the list itself clearly delineates. I'm ambivilent about whether the campaign setting modules should have their own lists ... I don't think there are enough to warrant though, and it seems a bit of list proliferation to me.
   6. Set up a master list with links to the sublists and anything that falls through the cracks.
2. Do something about the templates.
   1. Migrate the current template to be 3E/3.5 content, sectionalized to show which are which. Include links to the 3E/3.5 module list, and to the lists for campaign settings extant in the edition (i.e. not Spelljammer) or the main article for smaller ones like Ghostwalk. Apply this to all articles for appropriate books.
   2. Create an equivalent template for pre-3E material (or for each edition should we choose to go that way -- though, again, I would think not). Include links to the pre-3E module list and appropriate campaign settings (i.e. not Eberron). Apply to appropriate articles.
   3. Create an equivalent template for exceptionally large campaign settings. Forgotten Realms certainly deserves one, and probably Greyhawk too. Dragonlance would likely also benefit, since it has been spun off as a d20 product in 3E that wouldn't otherwise be covered in the lists.
3. Make sure everything links to the approprate lists and uses the correct templates. Redirect or delete anything now deprecated, such as the original D&D Books template.

This keeps everything organized, seems reasonably maintainable, and ensure there are no direct links to Category pages from projectspace. I'm about to inherit a lot of spare time this week and am willing to do most of the heavy lifting, but I'm not about to start this kind of page restructuring without some consensus, espeically since this project is finally around. Serpent's Choice 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad news - some pre-3e books were remade in 3e and 3.5. How will you differentiate? -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to. Books that appear in both editions, such as Deities and Demigods, will appear on both lists, and will receive both templates. There's no reason to have articles for each edition; there's not enough content to warrant it. The only drawback to this plan is that those books would have two rather large boxes at the bottom, but I think keeping the articles organized in a consistent, usable manner is worth the possible aesthetic concerns. Serpent's Choice 05:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern was with books made before 3rd edition, not books made in 3e and errata'ed in 3.5.

Um, but my example is such a book. The original 1E Deities and Demigods was published in 1980 (and is best known for its inclusion of Cthulhu material). There is also a 3E book with the same name. Under my proposal, the article for Deities and Demigods would include information about both editions (as it does now, although the 3E information is uncharacteristically weak) and would receive the templated book-list box for both 3E/3.5 books and Pre-3E books. The book would appear on both lists as well. Does this satisfy your concerns? Serpent's Choice 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thank'ee for clarification. I was also concerned about:

• Oriental Adventures
• The core rulebooks
• Tome of Magic

-Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OA and the core books will certainly be handled in the same way. Tome of Magic is a little special, since the 2E Tome of Magic and the 3.5 Tome of Magic are totally different books. At current, they are covered in the same article. The Project will eventually want to consider if they should be handled on separate pages. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently doing research into 3.5 to find out exactly what sort of things have severly altered in the game mechanics and source material and to see what kind of source would be allowed, by playing the game and talking to someone who publishes under the d20 OGL. I think sorting the books would be a good idea, but if to books have the same name they should be on the same article with each having their own section. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Book List Template

For use at the bottom of 3.0/3.5 sourcebooks, including campaign setting-specific material, for the Project's examination. See User:Serpent's Choice/Testplate. Its large-ish, but there are a ton of books! I'll give this a few days of Project observation/commentary time before I consider converting existing articles or even launching this template to the Template space. Serpent's Choice 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This did raise some questions, though. Is City of the Spider Queen an adventure? How about Return to Castle Ravenloft? Serpent's Choice 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm boldly going ahead with this. I'm open to other options later if we want, for example, a smaller box, but these articles are in such a dismally sad state that something needs to get started. Serpent's Choice 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All existing 3.X book articles now have this template. All non-book articles and non-3E articles that had this template have had it removed. A pre-3E source template will be necessary, but my priority is current material at the moment. Too much of this stuff won't pass an AFD in its current state. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll work on the pre 3 book template. Is there a version of a template that's already close to what we want? - Peregrinefisher 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even remotely. And I'm not sure we can just do what I did for the 3E template ... its montrously large, and the pre-3E one would dwarf it easily. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deities

How are we going to deal with deities used in the D&D pantheon? -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, what needs to be dealt with? I mean, what is our wish-list? --mordicai. 03:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we standardize how the deities are discussed in each article. I propose something like this:

1. Clerical Training and role in society

• should likely include why someone devoted to that deity would undergo a quest for him/her

1. Temples
2. Rituals and Prayers

Comments? -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about veering too near to "source material" for the game & encylopedic content. Also, you have seen the box for deities, yes? --mordicai. 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent, as it makes listing ugly...) I'm concerned that Jeske's suggestion is too much duplication of source material (and, regarding the questing bit, too much movement toward OR). We don't want these articles to duplicate Deities and Demigods etc., while still conveying useful information. Here's one possible article structure, although I'm not too attached to the layout.

• (Lede). All articles need one. What do we want there? I think a discussion of where the diety was introduced (sourcebook-wise), and any identifiable real-world inspirations for the deity are good places to start. The lede should be exclusively outside-the-world material.
• Faith. I'm thinking that a paraphrased summary of the dogma can go here. After all, that explains, in essence, what the deity is about. We want to be careful not to just copy the dogma section out of one of the books, though.
• Worshippers. Where is this deity worshipped? Are there any significant temples or holy places identified in sources? What general kind of people hold to this faith? Have any significant NPCs been identified as faithful?
• History. For deities with a significant plotline in canon material, this can be a summary of the important plot events. I'm most familiar with the Realms, where ascended mortals like Mystra and Cyric can benefit from this section. In the core pantheon, there's a lot to say about Vecna.
• In <Campaign Setting>. Some deities are going to appear in core and one or more specific campaign settings. Each such specific setting should get a blurb. For some, that's all it will be. For others, like Lolth, there will be extensive material about the deity's differing role and influence in that campaign setting.

Any thoughts on this structure? And, furthermore, any thoughts as to what we can do to that thing that is the current deity box (and its campaign-world-specific children)?? Serpent's Choice 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I propose the following:

  • Lead paragraph. This can be as simple as "Subject is a deity of . . . in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game." It should include the deity's portfolio, pantheon, racial origin, & campaign setting, at the minimum (if known).

• • Description: This section should include the deity's appearance, personal weapons, and personality. Relationships with other gods may also be included here, or perhaps in a subsection.
  • Dogma: A brief rundown of the deity's rules & regulations for the faithful. This should also include the deity's symbol, favored animals, favored colors, holy texts, types of services, sacrifices, etc.
  • Worshippers: This should detail the types of people drawn to this deity.
    • Clergy: This subsection should include the role of priests, required garb, duties, required training, etc.
    • Temples: This subsection should provide details on where the deity is worshipped (both geography & type of structure).
  • Holy days: Self-explanatory.
  • Artifacts: Any artifacts associated with the faith, such as the Hand of Vecna.
  • History: If warrented, this could provide historical background for the development of the faith, historical events in which the deity/faith palyed an important role, & life history if the deity's an ascended mortal (such as Kyuss, Zagyg, Vecna, etc).
  • Myths and legends: Self-explanatory.

• Other sections may be warrented, depending on the individual deity.

• As for the Core deities, I propose placing most of them in both the D&D category & Greyhawk category. Some, however, such as Corellon, Lolth, Gruumsh, Tiamat, etc need not be in the Greyhawk category, as they span several campaign worlds. Campaign-specific deities outside the core, for the most part, should be handled by individual campaign wikiprojects. I see the D&D Wikiproject dealing mainly with the core deities, racial deities (from Monster Mythology), archfiends, and "supplemental" deities which didn't originate in a campaign-specific source (such as the ones in Libris Mortis, for example).--Robbstrd 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm thinking perhaps the Temples section should not be a subsection of Worshippers. I think their should also be a Scriptures subsection under Dogma. I'm wondering if Holy days would work better as a subsection of Dogma, but since some holy days arise out of tradition rather than mandates from the deity (or holy texts), I'm not sure. I am wondering if Myths and legends should be placed closer to the top, perhaps after Dogma. Here's the revised hierarchy. I've done this to an extent for some Greyhawk deities like Atroa, Telchur, & Tharizdun--

• Description
• Relationships
• Dogma
  • Scriptures
• Worshippers
  • Clergy (other subsections, like Paladins or Druids may also exist as subsections of Worshippers)
• Temples (perhaps Temples and rituals, or add a Rituals section or subsection)
• Holy days
• Artifacts
• History
• Myths and legends
• Creative origins
• Notes
• References
• External Links

--Robbstrd 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That'll work. I support Robb's idea. As for the "Quests" section, I was looking at the appendix in the back of my copy of the Expanded Psionics Handbook while typing it, and it does have a quests section there. Just an explanation of *why* I added quests in my idea above. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see with articles about deities:

Core deities: The problem with the deities is that D&D didn't really have "core deities" until 3e. Before that there were a number of products that added a pantheon of deties/gods onto D&D (or AD&D). So you have a number of different sources for information on D&D gods.

Greyhawk: Most, but not all of the so called "core gods" come from the Greyhawk pantheon (Heironeous, Pelor, Kord, Wee Jas, St. Cuthbert, Boccob, Fharlanghn, Obad-Hai, Olidammara, Hextor, Nerul, Vecna and Erythnul). These gods are all the ones available to human characters. They are not really "core" because they can not be used in the Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms campaign settings. Effectively anyone using "core" products is running a Greyhawk campaign. However the D&D gods are only a small subset of the vast number of Greyhawk gods. I think the common root of "core" gods needs to be explained within their articles.

Racial pantheons: Non-human gods generally have their own pantheons. The 3e players handbook and monster manuals now generally only mention one non-human god for each race. Although the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting printed stats for several gods in the Drow, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Halfling and Orc pantheons.

Gods are part of campaign settings: Other campaign settings have their own alternative pantheons. These settings replace the "Greyhawk" gods with different gods, although in many cases the non-human gods are kept. I think that gods are so closely linked to campaign settings that it is essential to mention campaign settings or names of game worlds where the god may be found within all articles.

Dragonlance: The Dragonlance campaign setting is very strict about gods and does not allow any non-human gods. Non-humans and humans all worship the same pantheon. Two of the gods were killed off in the 3e version of the Dragonlance campaign setting.

Forgotten Realms: The Forgotten Realms campaign setting has many other campaign settings (which are currently out of print) associated with it. This means it has multiple pantheons. The "main" FR pantheon is actually the Faerun pantheon. This needs to be made clear. There is also a Mulhorandi pantheon (which is a subset of the egyptian pantheon presented in older products). The religions from Kara-Tur, Maztica, The Horde, Al-Quadim and the Arcane Age also apply to the Forgotten Realms. Several Faerun gods have been killed off in the 3e version of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and other new gods have been created. These articles are likely to be complex. It would be good to use one of them as an example when working out templates and rules.

Planescape: The Planescape campaign setting was based in the planes and featured a lot of information about the gods, their homes (home planes) and their representitives. You need to get a Planescape expert onboard the team if possible.

Historical changes to D&D gods: As the gods have been altered over the years, I think it would be essential to list all of the products where a god has been documented, as well as the changes themselves. Some gods have been promoted in rank, demoted in rank. Mortals have achived godhood and gods have been killed. Articles need to be able to show the evolution of the god if changes have occured. I'd be especially interested in knowing where the god first appeared, so something like a timeline of products containing the god could be useful.

Real life gods in D&D: Historical pantheons (or real pantheons) have also been made available in the past. Some of these pantheons have been dropped from more recent products (the most recent version of Deities and Demigods has a lot of the original pantheons missing from it). Because duplicate names have been used for D&D products that don't contain the same gods (1e and 3e "Deities and Demigods" being the biggest problem) articles will need to find some other way to describe individual versions of the books. We also have to deal with the problem of telling the difference between the D&D god Ptah and the real god Ptah. I think we will need disambigation pages for all of these.

Alternatives to gods: Some D&D campaign settins had alternatives to deities (including the "immortals" from Mystara the "sorcerer kings" from Dark Sun and forces from the Complete Priest's Handbook). I think Kara-Tur also had a multi-deity faith called "The Path and The Way". In game terms, these work in a very similar way to deities so should have articles that follow a mostly identical format.

Pantheons: Pantheons need to have their own articles. Some of the pantheons are fairly big. They come in three types (these are not terms from D&D products): racial pantheons (linked to a specific non-human race), historical pantheons (from real life mythology) and campaign pantheons (from a specific campaign setting). Some gods are found in more than one pantheon (Oghma in the Faerunian and Celtic Pantheons and Celestian in the Greyhawk and Spelljammer Pantheons are examples). Articles need to be able to deal with gods that are in two or more pantheons. Because pantheons and gods are linked, I think it is vital that both topics have a similar format.

Alternate names: Many gods have operated under other names. I think that articles should be placed at the most common name and redirects placed at other names, but you might want to discuss specific gods before making a decision. The Clusterspace pantheon (from Spelljammer product The Astromundi Cluster) consisted of deities that all had false names, so might be a good example to look at.

Avatars: This idea seems to have been dropped from 3e, but was present in 2e. Avatars were bodies created by the gods. Forgotten Realms seems to now use "chosen" instead of "avatars". Articles need to show well known avatars or chosen of deties.

Big Mac 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The deities respective to a specific campaign setting should be handled by that setting's WikiProject. However, the "core deities" point is a bit of a question. Avatars I would add to the Deities and Demigods article, as that's the book where they're mentioned. Real-world deities used in D&D (Namely, those of Norse, Greco-Roman, and Egyptian mythos) should also be mentioned in the aforementioned article. Alternate names should be included in a template box off to the side, unless we're formally ditching the idea. Pantheons having their own articles crosses the line a bit into fancruft, I feel, so I'm against it, ESPECIALLY since this WikiProject deals with D&D as a whole, not individual campaign settings (in fact, pantheons of a specific setting SHOULD be handled by that setting's caretakers). Planescape experts? Get a Planescape WikiProject together, as it is a specific campaign setting, as are Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. All in all, good ideas, but some of them overstep our own bounds into those of other WikiProjects. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The campaign wikiprojects are overspecific. We should take care of it at this level. - Peregrinefisher 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Are you saying that this wikiproject should dictate what is and is not to be included on say, the Selûne, Beory, and Takhisis articles? I'm not comfortable sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and I'm sure the campaign-specific wikiprojects aren't comfortable with it, either. Even though we are the "parent" project of FR, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, et al, that doesn't give us the authority to tell them what to do. IMO, people unhappy with the way a particular wikiproject does things should work from within that wikiproject rather than trying to dictate from another.--Robbstrd 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the man to do it, but it seems like the campaign settings wikiprojects should be task forces that are part of this wikiproject. There aren't that many users in any of the projects; it would be good to combine everyone/thing here. I'm not saying tell them what to do, I'm saying have them join us. - Peregrinefisher 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We also must demonstrate some caution. We cannot include all material, just what summarizes and synthesizes various sources. Many of these D&D articles have already been described as "slow-motion copyvio". Suggestions for article format that functionally duplicate Deities and Demigods, Faiths and Pantheons, etc. will only lead to an eventual mass-AFD. Serpent's Choice 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

D&D vs AD&D

I've noticed there is no distinction between the D&D and AD&D systems, and I'd like to include something about it in the history sections, if possible. Allegrorondo 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember top provide citations and sources to confirm your claim. -Jeske ^{(How's My Editing?)} 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind! It looks like someone has done a lot of good work on it already, under Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. I'll see if I can add to that.Allegrorondo 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dire animals

I am currently rewriting the dire animal article, as I said I would elsewhere on this page. Apologies it has taken so long, I have had a trip away in the middle of it all. Just need a little help. Basically, I don't have the following books- Sandstorm, Monster Manual 2, [whatever the cold enviroment source book is called], Monster Manual 4, Monsters of Eberron and Monsters of Faerun. I would like to know whether any of these introduce dire animals of any sort. I know that Stormwrack, Fiend Folio and Masters of the Wild do, but I have these. I also know that the Monster Manual 3 does not introduce any. Also, if I have missed any books that introduce monsters, especially if there are dire animals, please tell me. All I need is the name of the animal, I am just listing non-core. Thanks all. J Milburn 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter, I forgot about the Wizards of the Coast consolidated lists! I have got them all here. J Milburn 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I finished the article. The project page says that we should try and get things on Did You Know?, do you think there is anything in this article that could qualify? Am I right in thinking that it is allowed, because it is a recently unstubbed article? J Milburn 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Campaign Settings

No discussion about D&D can be complete without talking about campaign settings. The core setting is rarely used without a campaign setting and the 3rd edition of D&D relied on the Greyhawk campaign setting to supply information (like deities) that was previously missing from the game. Even if people would prefer to deal with this as a separate article, I would argue that it isn't possible. The two are so closely linked that a lot of information is meaningless in isolation.

I did a lot of work on the Spelljammer article when I first started editing and wanted to follow the formats of all the other campaign settings, but couldn't find a universal format at the time. I got quite a few comments about my editing at the time, because I couldn't find any guidlines for creation of D&D articles. The articles for subjects the various different campaign settings need to follow a standardised format (which should match core products), so I hope you will produce something that I can try to follow in the future.

One of the problems with campaign settings is that there are campaign settings placed inside other campaign settings. Kara-Tur, Maztica, Al-Quadim, The Horde and Arcane Age fit within the Forgotten Realms campaign world and Taladas fits on the back of the Dragonlance world. A couple of settings fit within the Mystara campaign setting: The Hollow World is one and I think the other one might be Savage Coast. So campaign settings need to have a format that allows them to slot inside each other.

Another problem is that there are a few crossover products that bridge the gap between two settings. Spelljammer and Planescape are the most obvious things here, as both can be used as bolt on products. An article about Realmspace is both a Spelljammer article and a Forgotten Realms article. And an article about any deity from any campaign setting is probably also just as relivant to Planescape.

You also need to make sure that all the campaign settings, no matter how small, get access to things like "this article is a stub" templates. So far it seems like the settings that are still published have more editors and better designed articles.

Big Mac 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I need help with the Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article. The "3rd Party and Licensed Settings" section is full of things published under the Open Game Licence. Someone seems to think that anything with the OGL in it is D&D - this isn't true. I'm sure that most of these settings are not actually D&D settings (or settings that were licenced by WotC or TSR), however as I don't own all of these products I need some help to confirm that they are all things that do not belong here. Big Mac 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Kalamar is officially licensed. (At least, they have the D&D logo on their products and I think we know WotC wouldn't allow that if they weren't. I don't think any of the rest are, though and can be chucked from the article. Cheers --Pak21 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also removed the non-official things from Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Cheers --Pak21 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

D&D Stub Template

This currently has an image that looks a bit like 2d6, however they are so small you can't really tell they are rollplaying dice and not spot dice.

I think that a d20 would be more appropriate for D&D as all combat, skill check and saving throw rolls are made with a d20. Unless you have a weapon that does d6 worth of damage, you wouldn't necessarily use these dice.

While I'm talking about D&D stubs, can someone please tell me how to get a stub made for the Spelljammer campaign setting? I can't seem to find one anywhere.

Big Mac 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a d20 would be perfect for the stub. Can ordinary members change them, or do you have to be an admin? J Milburn 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a cropped version of this, with only the d20 showing? J Milburn 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can change the stub templates[1], so feel free. As for creating stub types, you can do this, but unless you've discussed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types first it's distinctly possible that it will be deleted.

[1] Sometimes templates (either stub or non-stub) are protected as they are transcluded into a large number of articles; modifying them would mean all the pages including them have to be re-generated, thus causing a high load on the Wikimedia servers, and acting as a possible DoS attack. Cheers --Pak21 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of creating a new stub rather than editing an existing stub. There are other D&D campaign settings that don't have to share stub templates. Big Mac 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RPG-artwork

We need to come to a conensus on what types of images to include in our D&D pages. I noticed {{Template:RPG-artwork}} is being used on on these pages, mostly Dire animal (Dungeons & Dragons). If there is some way we can include images with the pages, it will really help the user/reader. I know Wikipedia:Fair use puts a bunch of restrictions on us: we can't hurt the business of D&D. Obviously, scanning the images from the books and listing the books' stats is illegal. What can we do? What can't we do? Discuss. - Peregrinefisher 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as bad as it sounds. All the images that I used when writing dire animal, and all my other D&D articles, are images that Wizards of the Coast are offering for free on their own website. It may even be worth contacting them, see if they will give permission, so that we aren't just 'presuming fair use'. As they offer the images themselves, I can't see them saying no. J Milburn 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way copyright works, unfortunately. The wizards.com site includes a Terms of Use section, which states:

The materials available through this Site are the property of Wizards and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, licensees, or other respective owners. These materials are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Information received through this Site may be displayed, reformatted, and printed for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce or retransmit the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, with these exceptions only:

You may make single copies of the materials available through this Site, solely for your personal, noncommercial use, and only if you preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with them. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form, whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of the materials.

Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials available through this Site should be mailed to: Legal Department, Attn: Usage Permissions Request, Wizards of the Coast, Inc., P.O. Box 707, Renton, WA 98057.

Wikipedia does not allow as fair use images that are licensed for noncommercial use only, so if we want to use any of the art gallery images from the wizards website, they will have to have a release on file with OTRS. Serpent's Choice 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So, technically, to use any of the images that I have done, I should have had written permission. Would it be advisable to write for permission? Even if it is, I wouldn't have thought that I was the best person to do that. J Milburn 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other option would be to make a fair use claim which is independent of the Terms of Use from the Wizards website. Cheers --Pak21 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what wizards says about using its images. Fair use is uneffected by this. The question is whether it is a fair use, and does it meet wikipedia's restrictions, which are more restrictive than just being fair use. We're supposed to minimize the use of unfree images. It's a gray area. - Peregrinefisher 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a role playing website that seems to have found a way to "use" the Wizards of the Coast images without distributing them. What they have done is provide clickable links that open the images in a new browser window. Maybe it would be acceptable to provide a link to the image in the references section of the article. We could even put the reference next to the name of the monster/creature. Big Mac 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Horde of hades

Coincidentially came across this article while new page patrolling. I know nothing about it, but it urgently needs looking at. I have also added it to our to-do list. Thanks. J Milburn 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it has been deleted now. I have invited the writer to the project. J Milburn 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Monster inclusion cutoff

We should consider developing cutoff criteria for monsters to earn inclusion as an article. We cannot simply create an article for every printed monster; beyond the copyvio issues that is likely to engender, that will quickly bring the whole lot to the attention of AFD. My initial suggestion would be that anything beyond the main MM is disqualified unless it has substantial coverage via modules, novels, or campaign setting material. Thus, warforged would get their article; ambush drake would not. Thoughts? Serpent's Choice 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea. As it sits, I have several Monster Manual II monsters on my watchlist. -Jeske ^{(Mail goes here)} 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good starting point to me. Cheers --Pak21 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyvio issues." An article about ambush drakes creates no more copyright issues than an article about, say, Uruk-hai. As for creating articles for every printed monster--I see no problem with it, as long as someone wants to do the work. Generally speaking, the more well-written an article is, the less likely it will be deleted. I'd rather see one good Fiend Folio monster article than 20 Monster Manual stubs. I see more problems with excluding monsters than not:

  • 1) Who's going to enforce it, & how so? Are you going to nominate every non-MM article that crops up for deletion? IMO, an editor's time is better spent creating & improving articles than playing "exclusionist officer."
  • 2)How does one determine what "substantial coverage" is? An appearance in a module? An "Ecology" article in Dragon? What about monsters that appeared in the 1E MM, but not 3.5, such as the thought eater or catoblepas? Overall, I think the project would be better served by improving & merging D&D articles than being exclusionists.--Robbstrd 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try to address my view on the above issues: (resetting indent for clarity)

1. Copyright violation. Just reprinting or restating the information in a single source like a MM causes problems because then our encyclopedia then duplicates content from their encyclopedic "bestiary" works. Many creatures, especially in the lower-focus books, only have one source for information. That causes problems (and probably fails the WP:FICT guidelines, besides). Also, below.
2. Enforcement. The onus of a Wikipedia Project is not just the glory of writing and improving articles in the project's sphere of influence, but removing ones that do not meet Wikipedia standards. If we cannot write anything more than, say, MM II says, then we cannot write an article. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing and making well-written articles better than deleting them, too. That's one reason for us to set some standards for what we try to include: it allows us to focus on the topics where well-written articles are possible.
3. Content. The ideal article on a monster briefly discusses its real-world influence or development (with a see also to the longer article about the mythology when appropriate), outlines the uses of the creature in sources other than the bestiary books (has it appeared in D&D miniatures? in modules? in novels? in D&D movies or TV shows? -- the more removed from just monster-entry content, the better), and, yes, gives a brief discussion of the creature ... without resorting to game mechanics and without substantial duplication of the bestiary-book content. If there are any special things to discuss about the monster that are not from an in-universe perspective, that's good, too (noting which MM creatures are omitted from the SRD as brand identity, for example).

-- Serpent's Choice 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think grouping monsters together is the best option, when there are numerous similar monsters. Perhaps all goblinoids should be together, all dire animals together, and so on. As the fiction guidelines suggest, the bigger monsters can then have their own, bigger section in that article, whereas the other can just be listed, probably by book. J Milburn 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to: "Just reprinting or restating the information in a single source like a MM causes problems because then our encyclopedia then duplicates content from their encyclopedic "bestiary" works." I'd like to point out that the System Resource Document is a parallel work that also includes many of the monsters in the Monster Manual. And if you don't stick rigidly to 3rd Edition rules you can also cite 2nd Edition, 1st Edition and Original D&D material. This should give lots of monsters multiple sources. Although having said that the copyright for all of these documents does belong to Wizards of the Coast.

If it helps to have alternative sources in the reference section of articles you could probably find one of the many websites that legally reprints the SRD and link to the monster entry on their website. That way, although you are still some WotC material you could base the articles for SRD monsters on SRD websites and only refer to the MM when constructing articles for monsters not found in the SRD. Big Mac 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Monster information

The monster template given on the main page seems doomed to create in-universe articles that fail WP:FICTION and WP:WAF horribly. The most important part is information relevant outside the game world, and only enough information from inside it as is useful to understanding the monster's importance or position in the game. Most of this stuff seems like trivia, though, or something that could be summarized into a couple sentences without losing anything over full sections. The reproductive habits of Githyanki aren't something we need to report in detail. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, WP:FICTION is a guideline, not a rule. You can find countless fiction articles outside of D&D that don't adhere to it.--Robbstrd 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:INN. The current environment at AfD is strongly disinclined to permit a repeat or expansion of the Poekmon Standard. There is no reason why, for most major creatures, that an article referencing out-of-universe information cannot be written. Also regardless of what might technically be allowed, those are better articles, and we should strive for the highest quality we can muster. Serpent's Choice 06:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It kind of sounds like we should make pages for all the minor monsters and redirect them to appropriate lists of monsters pages. This way we can cover the monsters and stop cruft, all at once. - Peregrinefisher 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced that there is any real value in having "Lists of monsters pages" at all. Either a monster has had non-trivial exposure outside of Dungeons & Dragons, in which case we can write a verifiable, out of universe article on it, or it hasn't, in which case, why is it here? While I know that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information either. Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We can either take control of all D&D monsters and their pages, or we can allow people to slowly create pages for every monster ever listed (Create 3, delete 2, repeatedly). I think this is the time to organize it. If you delete some obscure monster's page, it gets recreated. If you assign them a small part of a list, it's easy for someone (like you or me) to keep our eye on what's going on, and delete cruft. - Peregrinefisher 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure I like an argument which is essentially "we can't control this, so let's settle for second-best" but as I don't have a better solution to this at the moment... Cheers --Pak21 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have some nonnotables on my watchlist. How should we do the lists?-Jeske ^{(Mail goes here)} 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is best to list them in articles about other, similar monsters, where that is possible. J Milburn 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On another topic, I think it would be useful, in every monster description, perhaps as part of the Monster Template, to list the sourcebook(s) in which the monster's statistics are listed. This would serve as referencing as well as providing readers with a useful resource. BreathingMeat 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A template that list the source books sounds like a really good idea. Have we started such a template? If not, we could copy something like Template:Infobox Television episode and rename the fields to D&D related info. - Peregrinefisher 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion (of images)

There has been the mass deletion of the images tagged with the RPG-artwork fair use rationale. All of the images in the galleries on the Wizards of the Coast website have been deleted, and the images of the models have been tagged with 'no source' and 'no rationale', so could well be deleted soon. I am rather irritated that no one told me that so many of the images I uploaded were nominated as copyright violations, but what is done is done. I think it is time we contact Wizards of the Coast to ask permission. I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will say yes. Here are some relevent pages- Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 29/Images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 July 6/Images. It should also be noted that it was said in these places about how the RPG-art tag is considered a poor tag, and needs to be rewritten. I can eliminate the need for providing rationale and source for the models by taking pictures of my own models, but I own only a small amount of the models that I have uploaded. However, I should be able to boost the articles that are relevent to the models I do have. J Milburn 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that an RPG fair use tag is going to work. The problem is that for fair use to be justified, the use can in no way hurt the owner financially. The problem with D&D monsters is they come from basically a bunch of monster encyclopedias. People buy them for the stats, the descriptions, and the images. If we give away the images, it actually could hurt their sales. - Peregrinefisher 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the photos you're intending to take are of WotC models, that does not eliminate the need for a fair use rationale. See commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook. Cheers --Pak21 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional thought: on the other hand, it's probably going to be easier to make a fair-use rationale for photos (or for that matter, the original image) of minis: you're not going to be affecting the market for the minis in the same way as you could be affecting the market for the Monster Manual. I'd suggesting running this by some of the more informed areas on Wikipedia before uploading too many images, though... Cheers --Pak21 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This would almost certainly be acceptable fair use, if uploaded with the proper tag and with a detailed fair use rationale, to illustrate an article talking about the miniature or as a representative image of the miniatures set or game in general. I am less certain about the applicability of D&D Miniatures images being used to illustrate the tabletop D&D creatures or characters that they represent. Serpent's Choice 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand,gaining permission for using images on Wikipedia alone is not good enough, as Wikipedia advocates allowing the use of its information by third parties.--Robbstrd 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is correct: [2]. There is absolutely no chance that WotC will allow their images to be used for commercial purposes, so there's honestly no point in asking. --Pak21 07:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is irritating. I guess the only possible images will be the front covers of books and miniatures then. However, what fair use rationale should I add to the images of the miniatures? It is not something I have done before, or would know how to do. On the other hand, what about images of miniatures I have taken myself? I own some miniatures, surely I would be able to take pictures of my own miniatures, then release those pictures to be allowed on Wikipedia? J Milburn 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, {{statue}} is probably the best thing for pictures of miniatures. As for taking pictures of your own miniatures, you can do it and release the photo under any license you like, but you must remember that you are still creating a derivative work of some of WotC's intellectual property, and as such can be used only under fair use guidelines on Wikipedia. You may wish to see Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg for how I have licensed such an image in the past. Cheers --Pak21 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Miniature images aren't going to work; for fair use the article would have to significantly discuss the miniature itself, not just the corresponding DnD monster. Personally, I would love having an image on all the monster pages, but I don't think fair use covers that. It's too close to recreating the WotC books, and could effect their sales, which ruins the fair use argument. The rule we're butting up against is #2 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. I believe an image of a monster on the cover of a book, provided the book cover is discussed, is one of the few ways that a DnD monster page can justify FU. For instance, one DnD monster page that I added an image to is Red dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) (note the discussion of the book covers). Obviously, this will only work with a limited number of monsters, basically the most famous. Another one to check out is Githyanki. - Peregrinefisher 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We could always draw our own pictures. There's a lovely Beholder, for instance, on Talk:Beholder which doesn't violate fair use AFAIK. BreathingMeat 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that violate No Original Research? Neutral Point of View? That wouldn't be what it officially does look like- only official WotC merchandise can say what it does actually looks like, surely? What are the laws on copying other peoples' images? As in, one of us drawing a picture out of the Monster Manual ourselves? God, that wouldn't work... I am clutching at straws... J Milburn 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On another note, the AC Adapter for my laptop set alight, meaning I have potentially very limited Internet access until Christmas, when I am getting a new laptop. Therefore, if we are gonna add fair use to these images, could someone else do it? You can find a list of them at the links in my original comment in this section. The source was the WotC website, I am not sure exactly where for each one, no doubt on the sets' gallery pages. J Milburn 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User drawn images of DnD monsters would be considered derivative works, and would have the same fair use issues. - Peregrinefisher 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are a large number of webcomics and other unofficial illustrated content on the Internet featuring Mind Flayers and Beholders suggests that it might be worth writing to WotC and asking them if we can include our own illustrations of D&D monsters. BreathingMeat 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of monsters that are used by both Wizards of the Coast and other companies. Some monsters like elves, dwarves and centaurs predate D&D and there must be alternate images for these that are not based on WotC material. If someone can obtain permission from another source to use fantasy images would there be any problem with using a non-D&D image that just happens to fit in well with a D&D creature. The image would not be a derivative work and it would only be the wiki-editors that had connected the two works. I've even seen lead figures that look very similar to creatures like mind flayers, so they could also be dealt with if you could get permission to use artwork. Big Mac 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:D&D creature

I've started creating a template for DnD monsters at {{D&D creature}}. I don't know templates very well, so it could use work. I based it on {{Forgotten Realms Deity}} and {{D&D Deity}}. It has several things that need to be done before it goes live. Feel free to add to the list:

• Left align the field names such as "Alignment" and "Books featured in."
• Come up with more fields. Maybe "Related creatures" or "Type" (like undead). Rename "Books featured in" to bibliography or something.
• Make a usage thing for its talk page that explains how to use it.
• Make the name part not appear in a giant black bar.
• Decide on whether there should be an image field. If we include one, I think people will be encouraged to upload images that don't meet Fair Use, but maybe we can figure something out. - Peregrinefisher 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One by one:

• We should add its type, if for nothing else than for clarification. However, the question is, should the type be of the most recent edition (3.5)?
• I thnk you could add a usage note on the same page the template is on (examples are some of the warning temps).
• No more photos with you, Dr. Fisher. That brings up far too many FU issues.
• More fields: Type, Mythological origins.

This help? -Jeske ^{(Caroling Spot)} 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I added "Type" & "Subtype." I propose "Source" instead of "Books featured in," as this would include modules as well as books. IMO, this field should be used for the most current edition available. We could also have a "First Appearance" field as well, for historical purposes.--Robbstrd 07:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  What about mythological origins (namely, just the region where the creature was first mentioned in the real world, if applicable)? -Jeske ^{(Caroling Spot)} 07:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that information belongs in the article, rather than an infobox. There are too many cases where one or two words would not adequately cover it.BreathingMeat 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3e or 3.5e books?

Isn't Draconomicon and Savage Species 3.5e books? They are categorized as 3e on all pages I've seen, including the D&D Books template, and the List of prestige classes article. Kilmax yath 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Savage Species is indeed 3E, but I'm not certain on Draconomicon. -Jeske ^{(Complaints Dept.)} 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Draconomicon is 3.5, Savage Species is Pi, in that it was published in the transition period and, though strictly 3rd edition, is more compatable than usual with the 3.5 ruleset than the usual 3rd edition book. Piuro 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa on Draconomicon, I've corrected the template and PrC list references. As for the "Pi Edition" books (Savage Species and Fiend Folio), we really don't have any choice but to list them as 3.0, because they were released before 3.5. They are hybrid-rules books, however, and Wizards made some public comments about that, which should be cited and placed in the articles for those books. Serpent's Choice 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

TSR did something similar to this just before AD&D 2nd Edition came out. Greyhawk Adventures is a Advanced Dungeons & Dragons book that states "Compatible with the AD&D and the 2nd Edition AD&D Game Systems". If these books have a similar declaration printed anywhere on (or in) them then perhaps it would be correct to list them as both 3.0 and 3.5. Big Mac 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcane Trickster

If we are still active, that has just been created, and needs some serious attention. J Milburn 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a stub, but I'm not sure it's much worse than many of the other D&D class articles. Personally, I think a more profitable use of our time would be working out what we want to do with respect to merges and the like for all the class articles, rather than working on individual ones. Cheers --Pak21 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This is a Prestige Class not a Character Class. If you have a different template for Prestige Classes then this article needs to be changed. (And if you don't have a separate Prestige Class template then you need to make one. PrCs work differently as you need to have levels in normal classes before you can get one.)

I've added a refernces section with a link to the OGL page mentioned. However, the article gives opinions on class combinations needed to qualify for this prestige class that are not based on that article.Big Mac 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GDQ1-7

I have an idea to help clean up this mess. Let me run it down. First, we have already merged G1, G2, and G3 into Against the Giants. D1 and D2 have been merged into Descent into the Depths of the Earth. D3 is a stand alone, under Vault of the Drow, and finally, Q1 is Queen of the Demonweb Pits. All nine of these modules (including re-released versions) were eventually merged into GDQ1-7 Queen of the Spiders, an article that has yet to be written. What I am proposing is merging all four entries under this one title. I would like to be the one to do this project.

How am I qualified? Well, in addition to playing through each of these modules as a player and then later as a DM, I own every single version, including re-released versions, of the entire series. Second, I like to think I am pretty good at putting stuff together. Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars is an example of my work. As I did with that project, I would work on the consolidated article first, and wait for a few of the wikiproject members to sign off on it before we start with the redirects. So, any comments on this? Turlo Lomon 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with WP:WAF for all this? At the moment, there's very little content in the articles anyway that isn't verging on being indiscrimiate information, the "Critical reception" section in Q1 being the notable exception. --Pak21 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be handled like any article on a book. We could also show differences between the editions. There is a great storyline for the entire series. Turlo Lomon 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging sounds like a good idea. However, I think infoboxes for each module in the series should be included as well as for GDQ1-7.--Robbstrd 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The individual works still need to be recognized. Unless anyone has any objections, I can start work on this project later tonight. This would consist of writing the Queen of the Spiders article, without any redirects, etc. until everyones concerns are addressed and the article i finalized. Turlo Lomon 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For those that are interested, the current draft (tons more work still needed) is here: User:Turlo Lomon/draft. Let me know if you have any feedback on what I have done so far. I'm pulling out the modules now for specific details. Turlo Lomon 11:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Glancing through, I like your inclusion of all modules & compilations. However, I think "staggering" the infoboxes looks bad--it would be best, IMO, to have all the infoboxes on the right side of the page, unless you plan on adding enough text to make it more aestheticly pleasing.--Robbstrd 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There will be more text added. I was just experimenting with different styles right now. Actually, it is a rather fun experiment. I'll give a reply here when it is more article worthy. I'm stuck working 10 days straight and it has cut into my time. Turlo Lomon 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox D&D creature

I've made what I think is a good start on an infobox for D&D creatures. I'm going to start adding it to some pages, so please be BOLD and adjust the template, or request any changes or additions you would like. Here's what it looks like for satyr. Template:Infobox D&D creature- Peregrine Fisher 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:D&D creatures

I created a template too go at the bottom of creature pages. Here's what is it looks like currently:

Feel free to be bold and modify it, or make requests here. There's so many creatures that I just included pages that are lists of creatures. If you know of any other lists, please add them. We may want to add "Notable creatures" or something to list for the most important creatures like Beholder. You can also check out Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) to see this template, and the above infobox, all on one page. - Peregrine Fisher 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work!--Robbstrd 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject userbox

I've seen the previous suggestions for a userbox for this WikiProject, and as there is still none in use, I suggest one of these that I have set up. A fitting image can be discussed and created later.

D&DThis user participates in
WikiProject
Dungeons & Dragons.

Template:User WPDND2

Please tell me what you think. --Ifrit 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. I don't use userboxes anymore because they mess up my weirdly formatted user page, but otherwise I would definately use the second one. What's cool is that most projects can't put a good image in their userboxes because of copyright issues, but D&D looks right, and I don't think it's a copy vio. - Peregrine Fisher 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The second one is the one to go with, as D&D is a title of a product line and should be capitalised. D&D lets people know that you are talking about Dungeons and Dragons, so I don't think that you can make any improvements. You should move or delete the lower case version so that the better can have a filename that doesn't include the number 2. Then stick instructions about how to use it on the main D&D WikiProject page. Big Mac 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Ifrit 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done... I also tried to fix all the stuff with categories so that userbox automatically adds the pages it is put on to "Category:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons participants", but right now {User WPDND} won't do that, but {Template:User WPDND|User WPDND} does... can anyone help me fix that? --Ifrit 15:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

D&D template

I moved Template:Project D&D to Template:D&D and added stuff for quality assessment and importance assessment. I basically just copied the template that the Film wikiproject uses. I'm going to try and get all the cats created, and add stuff to the project page explaining it. Here's what it looks like:

- Peregrine Fisher 05:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As discussed on Template talk:D&D some of the optional fields avaiable in this template do not work. Does anyone here have any knowledge about how to fix these? - Waza 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Images and Stats, Oh My!

For legal reasons it's hard to have stats and images, 2 of the 3 things (along with description) that matter with D&D creatures. I've found a workaround of sorts. I've added fields to the D&D creature infobox that will allow us to link to images and stats at wizards.com. Again, for legal reasons, I made it very wizards.com oriented by naming the fields wizards_image_URL and wizards_stats_URL, instead of just image_URL and stats_URL. Basically, it's against policy (or illegal) to link to websites that publish these images and stats without wizards.com permission. Anyways, here's how it looks for Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons):

- Peregrine Fisher 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wizards.com stats to OGL stats, for linking to pages that use the Open Gaming License. These are legal for linking to, and most monsters can be found at http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAtoZ.html. - Peregrine Fisher 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The suffix (Dungeons & Dragons) has been added to I don't know how many of our page names. They really shouldn't have this unless there are multiple pages with the same name. - Peregrine Fisher 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I will post a a request at Bot requests for a bot to move everything of the form Foo (Dungeons & Dragons) to Foo if Foo doesn't exist or is a redirect to the D&D article unless there is disagreement here. Cheers --Pak21 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested. Cheers --Pak21 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And no response received over there :-( I'll make a start of doing this manually. Cheers --Pak21 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to change our format instructions a bit

I think that the real world information we have on the various subjects should be emphasized by being put towards the top of the articles. I would also like to deemphasize some of the in-game info by combining its sections. Basically I keep seeing Creative origins towards the bottom, and I would like to move it up towards the top. I think publication history and then creative origins should be the first two sections. For the monsters, I think the Ecology, Environment, Typical physical characteristics, alignment and Society sections should all be lumped into a Description section, unless they're actually long enough to support their own sections. The sections about campaign settings and other media seem to be working alright. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the sections should be in this order (after the intro sentence/paragraph): Creative Origins, Publication History, Description/Ecology/Environment all rolled into one honkin' paragraph, Alignment left to the infobox (where applicable), and lastly, Society(/Alignment where necessary) in a paragraph (if applicable, not all monsters have societies). Comments? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Creative origins, publication history, description is the right order, now that I think about it. - Peregrine Fisher 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Article - plan to get to Featured Article Status

The main article on Dungeons & Dragons has come a long way since this basic list was done. I now suggest we have a good core of a feature article and have suggested on it's talk page that it is now time to make a concerted and detailed effort to get it fully to Featured Article standard before it is nominated for a third attempt at featured article. While I have not been very active in this project as a whole, I have done a lot of work on this particular article, and I think this is a key one for members of this project to focus on. - Waza 11:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Weapons (Ugrosh, Holy Avenger, Sword of Kass, &c)

Is there any Wikipedia repository of fictional weapons that I am missing? It seems that things like the ugrosh deserve entries, even if compiled into one, perhaps listing possible origins (two-bladed swords have to have some precedent, I'm guessing) & history. Additionally, "famous" items or artifacts like the Sword of Kass or the Holy Avenger could also get their fair shake? Category:Fictional weapons seems to set a precedent for it, & would be a good spot for a subcatagory. --mordicai. 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a list of fictional weapons in D&D. Any one weapon from D&D, sadly, is probably going to have a shorter article than the Keyblade. EDIT: I stand corrected, Keyblade's a redir. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A list sounds good. If any entry gets to big, we can always spin it off into its own article. - Peregrine Fisher 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas on criteria for notability? I mean, not every magic weapon deserves an entry, & things like the maul from Races of Stone arn't really deserving either. Should a magic weapon only qualify if it appears in more than one edition, thus establishing history? Should an exotic weapon have to demonstrate a feature not found in historical weapons? Though by that measure, a dwarven waraxe wouldn't make the cut, since I don't doubt a canny historian probably knows of a big one-handed axe. Unique nomenclature, thus qualifying all the "racial" weapons? --mordicai. 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally we would find independant reliable sources that discuss the weapon. That's going to be hard/impossible, so lets focus on their publication history in terms of multiple appearances in D&D books and media. I would say more than one appearance would be a good criteria. It should be able to fill out some bullet points like:

• Dwarven axe:
  First appearance: Chainmail
  Current sourcebook: DM's guide 3.5
  Other: DM's guide 1, Module X
  Creator: Gary Gygax
  Based on: Battle axe
  Notes:Used by So an So in the Dragonlance novel XYZ, one of the weapons found in Baldurs Gate II

- Peregrine Fisher 01:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is bringing a term like "iconic" into the mix a bad idea? Now that I've written it, I think it might be, except perhaps in the case of magical items. For that matter, should iconic magic weapons be a completely different discussion? Anyhow, I like your choice of quick-facts-- anyone else have any ideas, additions, subtractions? --mordicai. 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. "iconic" should be more like "famous", since D&D's "Iconics" vary with setting (iconics do tend to be world-specific).

(as an example, not implying affiliation of Viacom with D&D) For example, say a Sword of Skarsden somehow found its way to the list. It would be iconic only to its setting (Neopia), and would be unheard of on say, Eberron or Greyhawk. Likewise, the Hammer of Thunderbolts wouldn't be familiar to a person in a Neopian campaign OR an Eberron camiagn. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think iconic weapons should be included the same as any other. Mentioning campaign affiliation when appropriate would be good. - Peregrine Fisher 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We've already determined this list should include weapons unique to D&D, iconic weapons (such as the Sword of Kas and the Staff of the Magi), but we need to make sure we aren't just creating a list for the sake of creating a list, since DMs that use self-made material (such as myself) might attempt to add iconics from their settings into the list. We'd need vigilance and verification if we are to make a list of uniques and iconics. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy covers the addition of a DM adding anything of that kind to the mix. Anyhow, bringing Neopets into the mix just muddies the water-- I'm talking only about iconic items within the context of Dungeons & Dragons (sorry, no Super Attack Pea), & outside of campaign settings entirely. Iconic to you, the player, & not within a fictional context, though I agree with PF, campaign affiliation is worthwhile info to put in. Things like the Staff of the Magi or the Talisman of Zagy. --mordicai. 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do that, and Mordicai, NOR became Wikipedia:Attribution. Besides, I was using Neopets as an example because I'm unfamiliar with Eberron or Faerun (I would have substituted for an iconic from one of those settings otherwise). Besides, anything iconic in a notable D&D setting would qualify as a notable item/weapon to D&D, wouldn't it? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh-- I wasn't aware of policy swap- thanks for the heads up. Either way, I wasn't thinking you were advocating some kind of craziness, just saying that a redundancy of policy isn't really needed. I do think that a notable weapon for Forgotten Realms would qualify, falling under the same umbrella as anything else, except that leaves us where we started: needing to define iconic. The "appearance in multiple editions" rule works, but things originating in the Third Edition get left out, & maybe they shouldn't be. --mordicai. 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Offer: citations from Strategic Review (all) and Dragon 1-250

I've got a copy of the Dragon Magazine Archive CDs sitting around. It includes in searchable PDF form the full text of The Strategic Review and The Dragon/Dragon Magazine/Dragon though issue 250. I've found it useful for pulling citations from (See example). If it's useful, I'm happy to dig out specific quotes, confirm citations, and the like, just let me know. I only have crude search capabilities, so I'd rather not go on general fishing expeditions. It will be easiest if you know roughly what issue you're interested in, or if you can suggest a set of reasonably unique words likely to appear in the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, our D&D pages need all the refs they can get. A good way to find Dragon articles is to use the index at http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/articles-subject.html . Then go to the PDF. - Peregrine Fisher 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment chart wackiness

For some reason, the chart showing how many articles are assessed at each level (stub, start, etc.) doesn't seem to be working. I left a note here, but wanted to let y'all know about the problem too, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

enworld.org

Can someone tell me what http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/ is about, and what the copyright status is on the monsters their? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination for Ravenloft (D&D module)

Please help another D&D article get to Good Article standard

There is currently to my knowledge only one D&D related articles classified as Wikipedia:Good Articles and none at Featured Article level. I would like to see the main Dungeons & Dragons article to featured article status, but getting there is not an easy task. To help build my skills and work on something more achievable in the short term I decided to try and take a D&D related article to Good article status. Over the past 2 weeks or so I have put a lot of work into Ravenloft (D&D module) and plan to nominate it soon. I am hoping to get some feedback first.
I believe this article has now reached the standard to be considered a good article and am planning to soon nominate it for Good article status. The first criteria it is (1) It is well written. is my biggest concern as I have been so close to this article is hard to see its flaw, any feedback is very much appreciated.
Of secondary concern is (6) contains images, to illustrate the topic. There is one image in this article and that should be sufficient, but more would be good. If you have any of the latter reprints of the module please scan them to add to the article.
I do believe firmly it meet all the other criteria as it is (2) factually accurate and verifiable, (3) broad in its coverage, (4) follows the neutral point of view policy, and (5) stable. - Waza 11:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Ravenloft (D&D module) has passed and is now a good article, only the second good article covered by this project. Thanks to those who provided feedback. While I choose this article as a short article on could work on getting to GA status but was unlikely to ever be a Featured Article, I found so much information on it that I now believe it could be improved and expanded to the level of a FA. I won't be working towards this soon, but possibly will one day in the future if no one else does it before me. - Waza 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal for Dragonlance Modules

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Ice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Faith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Light, Dragons of Ice, Dragons of Light, Dragons of Light - Some dragonlance modules are up for AfD. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These articles have all been replaced with a redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules In several years of editing Wikipedia this is truely the most insane admin decision I have ever seen. This is worse than a delete decision. The list article is already too long and does not have any room to expand the information on the module and any attempt to make a new article containg expanded encyclopedic information on these articles is now short. I would have accepted a decision to combine the dragonlance modules into one article but I am totally shocked at this. -Waza 08:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Realistically, I think that's a little harsh. Looking through the Dragons of Faith discussion, let's consider the viewpoints expressed one by one (strong personal opinions follow):
      1. The original nomination is IMO slightly weak; however "unsure of notability" falls within policy and is a valid view.
      2. Bucketsofg's "delete per nom" adds nothing to the discussion.
      3. Mister.Manticore gives good well reasoned reasons for keeping or redirecting.
      4. 13579create ignores policy completely.
      5. RGTraynor gives a valid reason for redirection.
      6. SkipSmith's reasoning is bogus per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and/or WP:INN.
      7. Wooty Woot's reasoning is essentially that this is non- or marginally notable, and as such a valid reason for deletion or redirection.
      8. Andrew Lenahan gives good reasoning for keeping or redirecting.
      9. Peregrine Fisher gives good reasoning for keeping.
      10. Waza's gives good reasoning for redirection (and as to why a separate article is a better idea), but fails to make any particular reason as to why this should be kept as a separate article.
    • Given all that, I see a lot of good reasoning for redirection, but not much for either keep or delete, so I think that closing this as "redirect" is a valid close. I'd agree that the ideal solution would be a merger to a list of Dragonlance modules, but closing AfDs as "merge to (new article)" basically has no effect (as nobody ever does anything), so I can see why the closing admin didn't do this. That said, I don't think anyone would object if a list of Dragonlance modules was created, and these redirected there, so I say be bold and do it. Cheers --Pak21 11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Point taken I probably was being a little harsh. I needed to vent a little which is why I commented here, and also I have slept on it before I made any comments to the admin involved.
      • I understand that closing as "merge to (new article)" provides with difficulties, but disagree that this means replacing the article with a redirect is the correct way to resolve this difficulty. Replacing with a redirect is a defacto delete, and taking this action as policy is supporting a deletionist agenda.
      • Pak21 I just read your user page Q: Anything else? so I see where your comming from. I somewhat agree article's have a tendency to be created and not improved and not referenced. This is something I have been thinking about a bit lately When my thoughts are straight I plan to start a new discussion topic on this very issue in relation to this project. - Waza 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think that replace with redirect is really a "defacto" delete, as the article still remains in the history. This means that the content can be used elsewhere, as Peregrine has done. Cheers --Pak21 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It took about 15 minutes. List of Draglance modules. - Peregrine Fisher 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Dragonlance modules (as I've tagged the misspelling for speedy deletion) Cheers --Pak21 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Module series names

We've got a little discussion about how to name module series going on at Talk:List of Dragonlance modules, please drop by and give your opinion. - Peregrine Fisher 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

List of monsters in monster manual (Dungeons & Dragons) questions

I noticed a new article called List of monsters in monster manual (Dungeons & Dragons). The article appears at the moment to be a template added and currently only houses one monster. It lists the name of the monster and a descriptive paragraph. However, I do have a couple of questions.

First, assuming such a list were completed, would it be a copyright violation as an unapproved copy of large portions of the Monster Manual? If so the article would have to be deleted.

On the other hand, if it isn't a copyright violation, then this list might a preferable method to list D&D monsters than using seperate articles for every single monster. Major monsters, like major characters in fiction, could still have their own articles. But minor monsters which have little to no references outside of the monster manual itself could simply be included in the overall list.

So since this project is the one most heavily involved in these articles, what are your thoughts? Should the list be nominated for deletion at afd as a likely copyright violation, or should it be worked on more thoroughly and used as a "list of minor characters" type article for D&D? Or should something else be done? Dugwiki 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more of a copy vio on that page than on seperate pages. I think a lot of the individual pages are virging on copy vios, though. We do need to merge our monsters somewhere. How should be break these pages down? All the creatures from the MM won't fit on one page. - Peregrine Fisher 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the name and described scope of this article is too narrow. If you are making a summary of the v.3.5 monster manual what is the point? you should go buy the book. However if someone wants to do something like this I would suggest something more generic like List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters then you could include things like first appearance, and what main monster books the monster is described in for each edition, including if on SRD. It would then be not just useful info about the monster but a useful reference on somene looking to research the "evolution" of the monster through different versions of the game. If would also be then more than a simple copyright vio out of the v.3.5 MM. - Waza 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one suggestion to consider on how to organize the info on D&D monsters.

• Create an article called "List of Dungeons and Dragons monsters" that will contain very brief list entries for any D&D monster in a published source. Include the name of the sourcebook and page number for reference, along with a short one sentence description or interesting note if desired.
• If a monster only appears in a significant way in a single source book, such as only in the Monster Manual, then do not write a seperate article about it. Simply include it in the above list, as it is effectively just a "minor character" in the D&D universe.
• If a monster appears in multiple sources, though, and a reasonably substantial article can be written talking about how the monster's appearances have effected various fictional works, then it would be ok to let it have its own article. I think the Beholder article is a good example of a monster that has appeared in a fairly wide variety of fictional works, not just the Monster Manual, and is an article that attempts to detail the history of those works and how the various Beholder fictional variants compare.

I think if you follow that track that in the long run you'll have something that satisfies everybody. You'll have a comprehensive list index of all monsters from all sources for people looking for specific creatures that might be somewhat esoteric, and you'll have creatures that are more significant in the real world sense having their own articles. Just my off-hand recommendation on a goal to shoot for. Dugwiki 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deity overhaul

Please see my comments at Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons deities for discussion of my propose overhaul to the various pantheons and cosmologies of D&D on Wikipedia. -Harmil 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this.--Robbstrd 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Plane infobox

Any ideas for what should be in a Plane infobox? I was thinking the following:

• Type (inner, outer, demi, elemental, etc)
• Layers (#)
• Alignment (if applicable)
• Chief Inhabitants (devils, demons, modrons, slaadi, eladrin, etc)
• Major Powers (pantheons, demon lords, deities, archdevils, etc)

Thoughts?--Robbstrd 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

References (template)

The reference’s on most of the game modules is just redundant and useless information. The info is often listed some where more appropriately in the article. The References just reference’s itself. How about we fix this or just droop it if there is nothing useful.Dm2ortiz 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference section has become pretty standard for all D&D articles. When writing papers, it is standard practice to include all works in the bibliography, even if you're writing about a book. This is because when writing about something, one will refer to it--in this case, the number of characters the module is intended for, level of said characters, credits, etc. In fact, if you check around Wikipedia, you'll find several examples, such as Siddhartha & Ulysses.--Robbstrd 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The reference section, at least how Wikipedia considers it is for citing your references. It's generally not used for anything other than a list of notes for verifying your facts. When you are writing about a book information about the author, year published and illustrator is put in the info box section. If you include information about the author's personal life (i.e. something not actually covered in the book itself) or other writings about this book (such as reviews and the like) then you would cite it in the reference section. If nothing is referenced in the Wikipedia article then the reference section should be empty we should not be putting stuff in there just for the sake of putting something in there

Wikipedia:Citation templates Dm2ortiz 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, when you put information from the module in the article, then you are referencing the module.--Robbstrd 03:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Module naming

Dm2ortiz has moved a large number of modules from "<module name>" to "<module name> (module)" with an edit summary of "WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons". I would disagree with these changes, as en.wiki does not in general (disambiguate) page titles unless necessary, and I see no discussion of this here. Any views from anyone else? Cheers --Pak21 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's rather unnecessary, in most cases. I asked him about it a week or so ago[3], and he responded on my talk page. I can kind of see where he's coming from, but I think it's time that could be far better spent fleshing out stubs or otherwise creating content.--Robbstrd 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's for wiki formating see Wikipedia:Disambiguation conformity. So everything looks alike, so every page on Wikipedia follows a similar formatting, for continuity. It is common practice for books to be listed as (novel), (reference) and the like I'm sure you've also seen in the references such as (album) and (movie)It all comes down to there is D&D project formatting as opposed to Wikipedia format. disambiguation is not automatically ex. Child's Play (disambiguation) or Nightrage (module) vs. Nightrage. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)Dm2ortiz 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't need to explain why we have conventions here, as I'm well aware of that. What I'm saying is that it is not normal Wikipedia practice to disambiguate terms where there is no disambiguation to be done. For example, The Grapes of Wrath is at exactly that title, not The Grapes of Wrath (novel) (which is just a redirect). --Pak21 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

it dosn't mater whats normal; it's about whats right. it should be "Grapes of Wrath, The (novel)"Dm2ortiz 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC) see Grapes of Wrath (disambiguation) Dm2ortiz 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Although that style of naming is "right" in other contexts, it is not the case at Wikipedia. Titles starting with articles do not have those articles shifted to the end; commas are to be avoided except where necessary in page titles (piping, however, can prevent titles to be indexed by "The" in category lists). And while there are some categories of articles that have (or have had in the past) pre-emptive disambiguation, it is not universal, and is discouraged without consensus concerning the topic. Serpent's Choice 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be very willing to admit that I am at fault. I am by no means an expert in everything. But if you wish to point out my missteps and you need to show where the actual rule infringement has been made. As I've stated before read the section on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). And to Serpent's Choice ''without consensus'' statement. Wikipedia is not a democracy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You are however correct on the removing of the word of (the) from the beginning of a header see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) although it doesn't say anything about whether or not we should put it at the end. If you can find where Wikipedia talks about that please let me know. Dm2ortiz 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you pointing to the MoS on disambiguation pages? This isn't a disambiguation page, which is "a non-article page in the article namespace", so that is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, the headings section refers to headings within a page, not the name of an article. In particular, see WP:NAME#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name: "Convention: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel." --Pak21 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you are correct. I didn't in fact list the wrong manual of style page. I had intended to refer to the page title section not the header. Your quote is what I meant. Other than that what is your point?

The discussion here is should we are should we not do "pre-emptive disambiguation"? If whether we do it preemptively or not sooner or later going to have to be so we need to decide how we are going to do it(if at all). For adventures the standard (module) that much is obvious but what about accessories us and box sets? Should we do (rulebook), (box set) or (game)

None of them unless there is another article that would, without disambiguation, have the same name. I agree with everyone else above, Ortiz. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Given I had some free time this afternoon, I have remove the (module) suffix where appropriate (it's left on a few like Earthshaker!). Cheers --Pak21 15:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is when we have to what format are we going to use Dm2ortiz 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When we have to disambig we should do so like this: "Foo (adventure)" (unless I'm mistaking what a module, in essence, is). Saying "Foo (module)" can cause some confusion - "Module" is also used in computing. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article titles should be the title of the book, monster, module, adventure or whatever it is, unless there is already something at that title. The only reason we use a description in brackets is that there is something more notable taking up the page for the actual title, or a disambiguation page. The context for the article should not come from the title, but from the lead. Why should Dungeons and Dragons related articles go against the norm? For instance, the renaming of not renaming Earthshaker! was the wrong thing to do, as there is nothing taking up the title of Earthshaker!. Also, that article has no context, so could reasonably be speedy deleted. J Milburn 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not use the disambiguation information unless there is a reason to differentiate two articles. -- Kesh 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

like Earthshaker (band) Earthshaker (album)orEarthshaker (heavy metal)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm2ortiz (talk • contribs) 16:13, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there was nothing at Earthshaker!. Note the exclamation point. J Milburn 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With specific respect to Earthshaker!, that one seemed like an edge case to me. I see it as very similar to the "Streets [oO]f London" example listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#If the two titles usually have a different meaning. I think a reasonable case can be made for having that one either way. Cheers --Pak21 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

D&D wiki project consensus

A call to all members of the D&D wiki project. We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project. The dispute is as follows. 1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Wikipedia article. Vote on preemptive or wait.

2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.

email me at Dm2ortiz@aol.com or post on the D&D wiki project talk page

member	pre	suggestions
Aetheilas
Bmader
BreathingMeat	strong no	D&D
Dm2ortiz	yes	adventure
Dragonmaster
Efgardiner
Everchanging02	wait	D&D
Frrostie
GnomeNinja5
Gsalt
Ifrit
J Milburn	no	[No comment]
Jeske Couriano	no	adventure
Lord Balin
MJ the Prophet
mordicai
Peregrinefisher
Piuro
Robbstrd	no	(D&D adventure)
Serpent's Choice
shadzar
St.daniel	No	Adventure
Turlo Lomon	No	(D&D module)

member	pre	suggestions
AgentLewis
Aikisenshi
AKParker
Big Mac
BOZ
CaptainQuery
GJD	no	D&D module (see Ravenloft (D&D module)
Gothenem
Interested2
Kesh
lifebaka
Torquebomb
TrickyYoda
Trixt
Waza
Bondgirl 2170
JPWoodman636

Polling is evil

Polling is a horrible way to determine consensus, and the results of this poll should just be used to give a basic idea of what the consensus is, NOT determine it. Our consensus should be based on discussion and on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. J Milburn 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like votes ether but we need to put this to rest so i can get on with my work here Dm2ortiz 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, well, I'm sorry to break it to you- a poll will not put it to rest. We never determine consensus via polls. Currently, you believe that we should pre-emptively disambiguate, despite the fact you are basing this on no guidelines or policy, and your only logic appears to be that it provides context. Context should be provided by the opening paragraph, not the title. In fact, you are going against our guidelines. We are told to use common names, and these are known as [module title], not [module title] (book). The guidelines, as well as common sense, tell us to only call the article anything other than the common name (except in some extreme cases) when other things are known as the name as well. Using this logic, pre-emptively disambiguating is unneeded, and will continue to be no matter how many people you get to tick a box. Provide reasons, not hordes of people who mindlessly agree with you. J Milburn 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ther is no pre-emptively disambiguating guidelines or policy. pre-emptively disambiguating is common on Wikipedia. my only logic is; as Wikipedia grows we will need to do it soon or later. I have stated 35+ pages so far and the "poll" as you call it will tell me how i sould wright them. I'm not looking for any one to agree with me; I just need to know what everyone wants. Dm2ortiz 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptively disambiguating creates article titles which do not reflect what the title of the article would be in a perfect world, and so should be avoided. Not every title needs to have brackets after it. It's Gravitation, not Gravitation (scientific theory), it is Wikipedia, not Wikipedia (website) and it is Adolph Hitler, not Adolph Hitler (dictator). What do you actually hope to get out of this poll? J Milburn 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn has this right on both accounts. All that polling does is shuffle people into competing camps rather than engendering discussion. Wikipedia does not make decisions via voting. Also, discussion about pre-emptive disambiguation is largely settled territory. From the naming conventions, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (emphasis mine). The closest analogue to modules would be the standards set for books at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). And indeed, that convention prefers no disambiguation except when necessary. See especially #Precision. I understand the desire to have articles on related topics named in similar formats, but (also from WP:NAME), "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors..." (emphasis in original). Serpent's Choice 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

we are just going round and round here. i don't tink it's settled till everyone has a say, not just 5 of us. I give it one week for those who don't hop on daly like us. this is my bottem line I just want know how i sould write my pages to pleas the the reads Dm2ortiz 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is 'settled before everyone has a say'. I'm sorry, but we don't have every editor have their say on every XfD debate, every RfA, RfC, RfB... Debates are not settled by everyone having their say, they are settled by discussions coming to a natural conclusion, and this one certainly has. Guidelines, common sense, consensus and the current norm all say that we do not pre-emptively disambiguate, so we shouldn't. As for what to disambiguate the pages with- that is something we can continue to discuss, but not something we should vote on, or list our opinions on. J Milburn 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is settled. Policies have been clearly shown that this action is not necessary, and those interested enough to discuss the matter have shown consensus: do not disambiguate unless there is a conflict between two article names. If you want to give it a week, fine. But first, strike that poll out. Consensus is settled by discussion, not votes or polls. This isn't a tally, it's a conversation. -- Kesh 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

come on guys can we just give it one week. thats all I'm asking Dm2ortiz 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you actually want a week for? What do you hope to get from this poll? J Milburn 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ortiz, you're clearly in deep left here. Nobody here seems to think we should preemptively disambig the articles, and the poll is not going to help matters. Leave the nightmare's corpse alone. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Partially tangent from subtopic ("Polling is evil"), but more geared towards the poll content. As stated in the comment of my vote, I feel "D&D Adventure" better reflects the idea of what D&D is supposed to be, as opposed to "D&D Module", which just sounds bland and boring. I think that "Adventure" describes more the story and outcome while "Module" seems to describe the mechanics and process. Just my personal opinion. - Everchanging02 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there is a distinct difference between 'module' and 'adventure'. A 'module' traditionally takes a single 'session' to complete (like Living Greyhawk modules, which usually take 4 hours). An 'adventure' can take several sessions to complete. These definitions should not be confused with a 'campaign', which is a series of 'adventures' strung together to detail a greater story. - Everchanging02 05:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's true: to quote from the start of The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which is "Dungeon Module S4" (just as I happen to have that one next to my PC at the moment): "Preparing for Play: To properly referee the adventure—an undertaking likely to last several game sessions—". --Pak21 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then there's too much confusion. Why not just disambig everything to do with D&D with (D&D) where necessary? BreathingMeat 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It makes it clear what context we're talking about. However, as this is going to be used on only a very few articles, I really don't think it's important what we choose. --Pak21 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

just (D&D) works for me. It's straightforward and simple. It's great when someone comes up with an idea rather than an argument.BreathingMeat you are a genius but you knew that already. ha ha Dm2ortiz 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "(D&D)" would be simpler for such distinguation. - Everchanging02 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should just differentiate based on the game rather than the product, but do we differentiate with (D&D), as has been suggested here, or do we differentiate with (Dungeons & Dragons), as appears to be the case in most existing articles? I think (Dungeons & Dragons) would be better, but redirects from (D&D) certainly wouldn't hurt. J Milburn 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"(Dungeons & Dragons)" - D&D is also the colloquial name for a radio station, if'n I'm not mistaken? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

capitalisation

i noticed redlinks for Assassin Vine and Chaos Beast and such, because their articles are Assassin vine and Chaos beast, but i think to remember manuals naming 'monsters' with all words having a capital. doesnt this mean the articles should too? if not, some redlinks need fixing, or wikipedia should automise redirecting redlinks to articles with more or with less capitals, as it does when you do a "search"· Lygophile has spoken 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The manuals actually decapitalize the monsters' names when mentioning them in their writeups. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. They're not proper names, so they should follow normal naming conventions for articles. -- Kesh 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

so that means other mentions of them should also be decapitalised right?· Lygophile has spoken 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes – as Jeske says, they're not proper names, so they don't get capitals. Cheers --Pak21 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)