Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.220.213.118 (talk) at 20:04, 26 April 2020 (→‎Murlynd - should everything really be deleted?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

   WikiProject        Portal        Assessment        Cleanup        References        Mergers    
   Watchlist (changes)        Article alerts        Article hits        Where did the articles go?    
WikiProject iconDungeons & Dragons Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
D&D to-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Hey you guyessssss!

I checked out this "library" book, so ask me for help if you need it.

https://archive.org/details/dicingwithdragon00ianl/page/100/mode/2up/search/alignment

Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeeet. :) I don't know if I have ever seen the inside of "Dicing with Dragons". :) Obviously, that could be a big help on Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has several short paragraphs that basically reiterate what the game books say. Then it has a couple sentences of out of universe info, which I added as a quote. I also have "Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana" but my copy is not searchable, and the text is teeny weeny. Whatever. Onward Christian Soldiers! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every little bit helps. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is left?

(Courtesy pinging potentially interested editors: User:AugusteBlanqui, User:BD2412, User:Bilby, User:Casliber, User:Daranios, User:David Shepheard, User:Drilnoth, User:Frecklefoot, User:Guinness323, User:Hobit, User:J Milburn, User:Jclemens, User:Necrothesp, User:Newimpartial, User:Oknazevad, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Sangrolu, User:Sariel Xilo, User:Shadzar, User:Torchiest, User:Toughpigs, User:Vulcan's Forge, User:Webwarlock)

Well, aside from our many articles about game supplements, adventure modules, video games, game designers, and much more?  ;)

If you have been living under a rock for the last several months, you may have missed that our project's selection of articles on fictional elements has dropped dramatically. In some cases we were talking about things so minor that it is unlikely that even one single independent reliable source has ever or will ever exist for it. In some cases, we are talking about things that one might presume a case for notability could be made, but were still deleted or redirected (see *Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where#Is a deleted article always gone forever? for a selection of topics which may have potential for the future; see *Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts/Archive for the full list of deletions going back to 2010), but in some cases an article survived an AFD either by the skin of its teeth, or by legitimate improvement through addition of independent reliable sources.

That leaves us with the question of what is left, and what can be done for them. The momentum on deletion efforts slowed down considerably in March 2020, presumably because there was not much left to delete. In the process of working on all those AFDs, some people were able to identify a few independent reliable sources that can be used for monsters and other fictional elements; it might be a good idea to see what other surviving articles those can be applied to, or what sources can be found for other fictional element articles. Since we already have people looking at what to get rid of, I figured it would be a good idea to explore what we have left to see what we can still keep. Some of these have survived AFD so far, while others have not been nominated yet and may still be, although I could have missed some:

Creatures:

Character classes:

Gameplay concepts:

Characters:

Locations:

Fictional elements miscellany:

On the one hand, that is still a big list. On the other hand, it is a small fraction of what once was – probably not even 10% of the fictional element articles we had a year ago. So pick something, anything – add it to your watchlist if you think it might be vulnerable, add any sources you can find anywhere, or just cross your fingers and hope for the best. Some of these will probably survive (another) AFD, some will be deleted, some will be merged. It is debatable as to whether or not having fewer articles is an objectively "good" thing, but having fewer articles does at least make them more manageable, so I think we can set more reasonable expectations for looking at what we can actually improve from what is left. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tidal mark/truce point at AfD is >2 significant mentions in secondary sources, so that is what has to be aimed for for any article to be 'safe' and even then depends on who turns up to an AfD. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, where my main efforts lie, I started a list of secondary sources. They are very much with regard to monsters, but some of the sources definitely have content on other topics, too. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Boz. I'm going to pick a couple and start working on them. I'll put my name next to them on this list. Also, will be interesting to see if the deletionists use your list to target additional articles they 'missed' going through the categories. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine they will, but in life sometimes you need to take risks. I'm hoping that this will lead to more good work than anything else, so thank you for any efforts you can contribute. :) BOZ (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, our first round has started. ;) Glabrezu is pretty minor, but Lolth, Asmodeus, and Kobold may have potential that the nominator (as usual) has undoubtedly overlooked. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more for now, the Lich, same as those mentioned above. BOZ (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just a suggestion, if anyone is so inclined (not me for a long time yet ;-), for articles that need improvement which I would hate to see go: The List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and related lists. They might be helped with content from Religions in play: games, rituals, and virtual worlds and other secondary sources brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer Plane. These could of course also help Outer Plane and Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Also great, but a lot of work would be a parent article Religion in Dungeons & Dragons or some such, based on the same sources and possibly benefiting from stuff found in Dungeons & Dragons controversies with the allegations of satanism, demon worship, promoting paganism... Daranios (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well since Illithid/Mind-Flayer, and Beholder are trademarked to HASBRO/WotC that should give them some notoriety by legal precedent? shadzar-talk 15:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to think that, at least, it couldn't hurt. :) BOZ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobold Quarterly

A current AfD brought a magazine I'd never heard of - Kobold Quarterly - to my attention. It strikes me that a print magazine focused on D&D but from a third-party publisher could be a goldmine of "reliable" sources about various D&D-related topics (designers, books, fictional elements, etc.). Has anyone read these before? It looks like you could get a full run for about US$100 on DriveThruRPG. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have the bundle in my shopping cart. Before I pull the trigger on it do you think that it would help? Look how much casuistic resistance there is to The Monsters Know What They're Doing and it's full of social theory and cultural commentary--the discussion of tribes, just take one example, is an excellent precis of anthropological theory! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know. I've been a little surprised at some of the claims made in recent AfDs - I think some people have a too-conservative vision of what counts as decent source. I had a very quick look through an issue, and I'm sure I'd love to sit through it if I was still gaming, but it's mostly new content (e.g., stats for new classes and monsters) rather than reflections on old content. That said, there are definitely bits that would be useful. There are articles that seem to be reflecting on how to design encounters and so forth... An article on the Ninja character class (wasn't our article on that deleted recently?)... And an article about game balance by none other than Monte Cook! Reviews would be useful, but in that issue, I think the reviews are of novels rather than game books. Maybe the thing to do would be look through one or two issues, add some useful references (to further reading sections at least) and then buy more issues if you think it worthwhile. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that most of the "Sure, it's covered in detail, but it's not covered the right way" comments you see are more based on opinion than policy. RPGnet has an index to the 23 issues of KQ published between 2007 to 2012[1] and while it looks like most issues featured reviews of fiction and other books (including one of my favorite sources[2]), unless I am missing something I did not see any games reviews. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposed for merger - Table Titans

This proposal was not picked up by the bot that collects these things, so I'm posting it here.

An editor is proposing removing the article on Table Titans, a D&D comic, and merging it into PvP. The discussion is here. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Article Alerts will pick it up tomorrow, but thanks for the heads up. BOZ (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murlynd - should everything really be deleted?

Hi, I'm new; sorry if this is not the proper way to bring something up!

I just noticed that until March 10, there was quite a long page about Murlynd (with many hundreds of revisions). Now there is almost NOTHING, and I believe this is a mistake. The Murlynd page now just redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greyhawk_deities, which has NO ENTRY on Murlynd. (It is just mentioned that Phaulkon is an ally of Murlynd, nothing more.)

On the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greyhawk_characters, there is an entry "M: Murlynd", which just refers to "Main article: Murlynd", which (as i just stated) no longer exists except as a redirect to a page which has no Murlynd entry.

This strikes me as almost surely a mistake. Was the information perhaps duplicated, but now it has been removed from both places? Thanks, Whitman77 Whitman77 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what happened from the page history. If you like, you could merge the content into either the character list or the deity list (and target the redirect as appropriate). You could recreate the article, but I suspect it'll end up at AFD before long. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whitman77, I recommend merging the content as suggested above. 98.220.213.118 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons&oldid=953319061"