Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Greyhawk

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Greyhawk redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Nice! I was getting antsy for this! Let 'er rip!--Iquander 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra sections

This page was created automatically with a template, hence all the different sections. I've already deleted ("title"), added, & renamed a few, as I felt that would better suit our purposes. Does anyone have proposals for futher deletion, addition, or renaming? I'm thinking of deleting several of those at the bottom. We can re-add them later, if we feel the need.--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

At some point, we will probably want some structure/style subpages for different categories of article, such as "Greyhawk places," "Greyhawk deities," "Greyhawk magical items," & "Greyhawk characters."--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Style

I realize that I am more obsessed than most people (by necessity) with the accepted D&D style guides, but I think we should probably write role-playing as one word, "roleplaying," as TSR and Wizards of the Coast do. I know that's really minor, but in all cases I think we should err on the side of what is accepted practice for the publishers of the game. Yeah, I'm anal. Welcome to my life. :) --Iquander 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's similar talk over at the RPG Wikiproject. I really don't care either way. The Role-playing game article uses the hyphen, but the roleplaying article doesn't. The former article should probably be moved to roleplaying game, too. I guess I'll start writing it without the hypen & see what happens.--Robbstrd 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iquander as well. No hyphen. Fairsing 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project template

I created a template to add at the top of the talk pages of all GH articles. I based it on a similar template used at the RPG wikiproject. Comments?--Robbstrd 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) You can see the template at Template:ProjectGreyhawk. To put it on a page, use {{ProjectGreyhawk}}.--Robbstrd 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New style references

I've added a sub-section on new style references with some examples. Feel free to update, alter, expand or remove. It's really just a suggestion based on emerging practices Wikipedia-wide. -Harmil 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly, this method essentially footnotes references. This would be better served under a "Notes" section, since "References" should be alphabetical.--Robbstrd 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this into the "Notes" section above it. See [1] & [2] about maintaining separate notes 7 references sections.--Robbstrd 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step back a bit. References is the section in which References go. The <references/> tag exists for this reason. However, there's currently no reasonable way to integrate auto-generated references from footnotes with general references that are simply placed in the References section. Because of this, large, featured articles have these sections in duplicate, listing all of the references in citation order in the Notes section, and then again in alphabetical order in the References section. This is, frankly, awful, but it's what we have. Wikipedia's technology is still struggling to keep up. In small articles (which is was almost all of the Greyhawk articles are) this is not required. We will typically have something like a module, whe the References section will list the module and perhaps a re-printing as a general reference for the whole article, or we will have an article for something like a deity where sources come from all over the canon. In cases like that, we'll proably want to stick to inline, new-style references, as there aren't any references that cover the whole article anyway.

In any case, I don't see a need to have a Notes section UNLESS you mix the two types of references, and that should almost never happen. Instead, we can either write a References section manually or auto-popluate it using <references/>. If that section gets beyond, say 5 or so references (just to be totally arbitrary), then perhaps it makes sense to go all featured article on its associated parts and do the big duplicated Notes/References thing, but on the scale of stubs and short articles this is just cumbersome for the author and the reader. -Harmil 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Could I perhaps suggest an alternate userbox?

This user is a member of WikiProject Greyhawk.

-Harmil 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, I got the background color from one of my favorite Greyhawk module covers: Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. -Harmil 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, but the only thing I'm worried about is that the image may not be considered fair use. A number of FR deity symbols were recently removed for the same reason (see this user's talk page.--Robbstrd 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, of course. Silly of me. Let me think about it. I'm sure I can come up with an image that's reasonable copyright wise and more emblematic than a bird. -01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)